[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] app/testpmd: Moved cmdline_flow to librte_cmdline

[Olivier Matz]

Hi,

> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 9:40 AM Olivier Matz <olivier.matz at 6wind.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 08:45:32AM +0000, george.dit at gmail.com wrote:
> > Hi Georgios,
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 01:30:35AM +0000, Lu, Wenzhuo wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Georgios Katsikas
> > > > Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2018 5:01 AM
> > > > To: olivier.matz at 6wind.com
> > > > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Georgios Katsikas <george.dit at gmail.com>
> > > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] app/testpmd: Moved cmdline_flow to
> > > > librte_cmdline
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Georgios Katsikas <george.dit at gmail.com>
> > > Looks like a good idea to move this code to the lib.
> > > cc Adrien the author of this file, app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c.
> >
> > If the command line parsing of rte_flow is something that has some
> > chances to be shared among multiple applications, I agree it makes sense
> > to move it in a library.
> >
> > However, my opinion is that it would be better to have a specific
> > library for it, like librte_flow_cmdline, because I'm not sure that
> > people linking with librte_cmdline always want to pull the rte_flow
> > parsing code.
> >
> >
> Hi Lu, Oliver,
> 
> Thanks for your feedback!
> You have a point here, flow commands are only a subset of the parser.
> Do you want me to create this new library and send another patch?

Let's first wait for Adrien's feedback, he can have counter-arguments.

> I guess I have to use librte_cmdline as a template/example for creating the
> librte_flow_cmdline library.

It can be used as an example for Makefile and .map file.