[PATCH v5 0/2] Add config file support for l3fwd

[Ananyev, Konstantin]

> > > > >> Or have a generic library for reading LPM entries.  L3fwd is supposed
> > > > >> to be as small as possible (it no longer is), and the real work should
> > > > >> be done by libraries to make it easier to build other applications.
> > > > >
> > > > > I never heard users ask about such thing,
> > > > > but if there is a demand for that, then I suppose it could be considered.
> > > > > CC-ing LPM/FIB maintainers to comment.
> > > > > Though I believe it should be a subject of separate patch and discussion
> > > > > (I think many questions will arise - what format should be, how to support
> > > > > different types of user-data, to make it generic enough, etc.).
> > > >
> > > > Agree, it is very application specific, so it could be really difficult
> > > > to make it generic.
> > >
> > > But several other also have LPM tables, so why not have common code for other applications.
> > >
> > > examples/l3fwd-power/main.c
> > > examples/ipsec-secgw/rt.c
> > > examples/ip_fragmentation/main.c
> > > examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_lpm.c
> > > examples/ip_reassembly/main.c
> >
> > Ah yes, that's good point.
> > All these examples (except ipsec-secgw) started as l3fwd clones,
> > so all of them have hard-coded LPM (and EM) tables too.
> > Yes it would be good thing to address that problem too,
> > and have some common code (and common routes file format) for all of them.
> > I don't know is that a good idea to introduce parse file function in LPM/FIB library
> > itself, might be better to  have something like examples/common/lpm_parse*.
> > Anyway, this is an extra effort, and I think no-one has time for it in 22.03 timeframe.
> > My suggestion would be for 22.03 go ahead with current l3fwd patches,
> > then later we can consider to make it common and update other examples.
> 
> I don't think this patch is urgent.
> I suggest taking time to have common code for all examples
> and target a merge in DPDK 22.07.

Well, yes, from one perspective it not really a critical one,
we do live with hard-coded routes inside l3fwd for nearly 10 year by now.
Though l3fwd is one of mostly used examples inside DPDK and
it is quite a pain to patch/rebuild it each time someone needs to run
l3fwd with a different routing table. 
Merging this patch will allow people to use l3fwd for more realistic test
scenarios in a painless manner.
So I believe this patch is really helpful and should be beneficial for the whole community.
Looking from that perspective, I don't see why it has to be "all or nothing" attitude here.
Why we can't move one step at a time instead?
That would allow to split and effort in terms of development/testing/upstreaming/etc.