From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/4] flow classification library Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 22:59:05 +0200 Message-ID: <2082789.j6r8FRWjAK@xps> References: <1508679124-5922-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com> <1508771778-617-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, ferruh.yigit@intel.com, konstantin.ananyev@intel.com, cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com, adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com, jasvinder.singh@intel.com, john.mcnamara@intel.com To: Bernard Iremonger Return-path: Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C6621B6D2 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 22:59:07 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <1508771778-617-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 23/10/2017 17:16, Bernard Iremonger: > The initial implementation is to provide counting of IPv4 five tuple packets for UDP, TCP and SCTP, > but the library is planned to be as generic as possible. > > The flow information provided by this library is missing to implement full IPFIX features, > but this is planned to be the initial step. > > Flows are defined using rte_flow, also measurements (actions) are provided by rte_flow. > To support more IPFIX measurements, the implementation may require extending rte_flow in addition to > extending this library. > > The library uses both flows and actions defined by rte_flow.h so this library has a dependency on > rte_flow.h > > This patch set also contains a set of unit tests for the Flow Classify library, patch(4) and > a patch(3) containing additional functions added to the packet burst generator code. > > For further steps, this library may be expanded to benefit from hardware filters for better performance. > > It will be more beneficial to shape this library to cover more use cases, > please feel free to comment on possible other use cases and desired functionalities. I had some feedbacks that this library won't be ready for 17.11. So I did not review it. I suppose you are OK to wait one more release and call for more reviewers?