From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ferruh Yigit Subject: Re: [RFC 17.08] flow_classify: add librte_flow_classify library Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 17:02:50 +0100 Message-ID: <64f62140-86d9-22e8-6605-487da657a4f4@intel.com> References: <20170420185448.19162-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <20170420185448.19162-2-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FAF774A@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "Mcnamara, John" , "Tahhan, Maryam" To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "dev@dpdk.org" Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98BED2C55 for ; Wed, 17 May 2017 18:03:04 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FAF774A@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 5/17/2017 3:54 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > Hi Ferruh, > Please see my comments/questions below. Thanks for review. > Thanks > Konstantin <...> > I think it was discussed already, but I still wonder why rte_flow_item can't be used for that approach? Missed this one: Gaƫtan also had same comment, copy-paste from other mail related to my concerns using rte_flow: " rte_flow is to create flow rules in PMD level, but what this library aims to collect flow information, independent from if underlying PMD implemented rte_flow or not. So issues with using rte_flow for this use case: 1- It may not be implemented for all PMDs (including virtual ones). 2- It may conflict with other rte_flow rules created by user. 3- It may not gather all information required. (I mean some actions here, count like ones are easy but rte_flow may not be so flexible to extract different metrics from flows) "