On 1/23/2019 5:26 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 23/01/2019 18:20, Ananyev, Konstantin: >> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] >>> 23/01/2019 17:32, Ferruh Yigit: >>>> On 3/10/2017 8:58 PM, rkerur at gmail.com (Ravi Kerur) wrote: >>>>> This patchset merges l3fwd-acl and l3fwd code into common directory. >>>>> Adds config file read option to build LPM and EM tables. >>>>> >>>>> Ravi Kerur (3): >>>>> examples/l3fwd: merge l3fwd-acl code into l3fwd >>>>> examples/l3fwd: add config file support for lpm >>>>> examples/l3fwd: add config file support for exact >>>> >>>> Hi Ravi, >>>> >>>> These l3fwd patches are in patchwork for a long time, I am updating the >>>> patchset >>>> as rejected, if it is still relevant please send a new version on top of >>>> latest >>>> repo. >>>> >>>> Sorry for any inconvenience caused. >>>> >>>> For reference patches: >>>> https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/21696/ >>>> https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/21695/ >>>> https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/21697/ >>>> >>>> doc one: >>>> https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/24211/ >>> >>> This work was going in the right direction. >>> >> >> Totally agree. >> >>> Konstantin, as the maintainer of the ACL library, >>> do you think it is worth to keep this example as standalone or merged? >> >> My vote is definitely for merging. >> That would give us single l3fwd app with 3 different routing methods >> (lpm, hash, acl) selectable at run-time, plus routing tables in config file. > > OK, so we just need to find a volunteer.
There was a "Nice to have - Future" section in Roadmap webpage [1], does it help putting there? Also we talked about GSOC recently, can this be an item for it? [1] http://core.dpdk.org/roadmap/#future > Ravi started the work a long time ago and did not receive enough review. > I'm afraid he's not available anymore. > >
