Hi all, >My vote is definitely for merging. +1 for this, this seems very reasonable
Regards, Rami Rosen On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 19:20, Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 5:11 PM > > To: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin > > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > > Cc: Ravi Kerur <rke...@gmail.com>; dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Mcnamara, John > > <john.mcnam...@intel.com> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/3] examples/l3fwd: merge l3fwd-acl code > > into l3fwd > > > > 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. > Konstantin > > > > > > > >
