[dpdk-dev] [RFC 17.08] flow_classify: add librte_flow_classify library

Gaëtan Rivet gaetan.rivet at 6wind.com
Fri May 19 11:11:27 CEST 2017


On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 08:57:01AM +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas at monjalon.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:32 PM
>> To: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
>> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Gaëtan Rivet <gaetan.rivet at 6wind.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; Mcnamara, John
>> <john.mcnamara at intel.com>; Tahhan, Maryam <maryam.tahhan at intel.com>; adrien.mazarguil at 6wind.com
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 17.08] flow_classify: add librte_flow_classify library
>>
>> 18/05/2017 13:33, Ferruh Yigit:
>> > On 5/17/2017 5:38 PM, Gaëtan 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 flexible
>> > > 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.
>> > >
>> > > 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.
>> > >
>> > > 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.
>> >
>> > Thanks for clarification, I see now what you and Konstantin is proposing.
>> >
>> > 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?

Even outside of lib/librte_ether, wouldn't rte_flow stay dependent on
rte_ether?

>
>Just a thought: probably move rte_flow.h to  lib/librte_net?
>Konstantin

If we are to move rte_flow, why not lib/librte_flow?

-- 
Gaëtan Rivet
6WIND


More information about the dev mailing list