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

george.dit at gmail.com george.dit at gmail.com
Tue Jan 16 09:45:32 CET 2018


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

Best regards,
Georgios

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 9:40 AM Olivier Matz <olivier.matz at 6wind.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.
>
>


More information about the dev mailing list