From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [RFC 17.08] flow_classify: add librte_flow_classify library Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 22:31:57 +0200 Message-ID: <2028578.MMgbIyi7hy@xps> References: <20170420185448.19162-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <20170517163848.GQ14914@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: dev@dpdk.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan?= Rivet , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "Mcnamara, John" , "Tahhan, Maryam" , adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com To: Ferruh Yigit Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D50FC20F for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 22:32:00 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 18/05/2017 13:33, Ferruh Yigit: > On 5/17/2017 5:38 PM, Ga=EBtan Rivet wrote: > > The other is the expression of flows through a shared syntax. Using > > flags to propose presets can be simpler, but will probably not be flexi= ble > > enough. rte_flow_items are a first-class citizen in DPDK and are > > already a data type that can express flows with flexibility. As > > mentioned, they are however missing a few elements to fully cover IPFIX > > meters, but nothing that cannot be added I think. > >=20 > > So I was probably not clear enough, but I was thinking about > > supporting rte_flow_items in rte_flow_classify as the possible key > > applications would use to configure their measurements. This should not > > require rte_flow supports from the PMDs they would be using, only > > rte_flow_item parsing from the rte_flow_classify library. > >=20 > > Otherwise, DPDK will probably end up with two competing flow > > representations. Additionally, it may be interesting for applications > > to bind these data directly to rte_flow actions once the > > classification has been analyzed. >=20 > Thanks for clarification, I see now what you and Konstantin is proposing. >=20 > And yes it makes sense to use rte_flow to define flows in the library, I > will update the RFC. Does it mean that rte_flow.h must be moved from ethdev to this new flow library? Or will it depend of ethdev?