[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10 0/4] flow classification library

Iremonger, Bernard bernard.iremonger at intel.com
Tue Oct 24 10:40:54 CEST 2017

Hi Thomas,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas at monjalon.net]
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 9:59 PM
> To: Iremonger, Bernard <bernard.iremonger at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>; Ananyev,
> Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; Dumitrescu, Cristian
> <cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com>; adrien.mazarguil at 6wind.com; Singh,
> Jasvinder <jasvinder.singh at intel.com>; Mcnamara, John
> <john.mcnamara at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10 0/4] flow classification library
> 23/10/2017 17:16, Bernard Iremonger:
> > The initial implementation is to provide counting of IPv4 five tuple
> > packets for UDP, TCP and SCTP, but the library is planned to be as generic
> as possible.
> >
> > The flow information provided by this library is missing to implement
> > full IPFIX features, but this is planned to be the initial step.
> >
> > Flows are defined using rte_flow, also measurements (actions) are
> provided by rte_flow.
> > To support more IPFIX measurements, the implementation may require
> > extending rte_flow in addition to extending this library.
> >
> > The library uses both flows and actions defined by rte_flow.h so this
> > library has a dependency on rte_flow.h
> >
> > This patch set also contains a set of unit tests for the Flow Classify
> > library, patch(4) and a patch(3) containing additional functions added to the
> packet burst generator code.
> >
> > For further steps, this library may be expanded to benefit from hardware
> filters for better performance.
> >
> > It will be more beneficial to shape this library to cover more use
> > cases, please feel free to comment on possible other use cases and desired
> functionalities.
> I had some feedbacks that this library won't be ready for 17.11.
> So I did not review it.
> I suppose you are OK to wait one more release and call for more reviewers?

This library was not ready for 17.11.RC1 having received some comments just before the RC1 deadline.
It was then targeted for RC2 and we have pulled out all the stops to get it ready for RC2.

It is now at v10 of the patch set, there have been no review comments from the community (apart from Intel), since RFC v3.

I think that there has been ample time for the community to review this patch set, calling for more reviewers at this point is not helpful.

The API's of the library are marked as experimental, so there will be no issues with ABI breakage, if there are requests for changes later.

I am not OK to wait one more release, I believe we have followed the process correctly.



More information about the dev mailing list