> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net]
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:32 PM
> To: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; Gaëtan Rivet <gaetan.ri...@6wind.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Mcnamara, John
> <john.mcnam...@intel.com>; Tahhan, Maryam <maryam.tah...@intel.com>;
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 17.08] flow_classify: add librte_flow_classify
> 18/05/2017 13:33, Ferruh Yigit:
> > On 5/17/2017 5:38 PM, Gaëtan Rivet wrote:
> > > The other is the expression of flows through a shared syntax. Using
> > > flags to propose presets can be simpler, but will probably not be flexible
> > > enough. rte_flow_items are a first-class citizen in DPDK and are
> > > already a data type that can express flows with flexibility. As
> > > mentioned, they are however missing a few elements to fully cover IPFIX
> > > meters, but nothing that cannot be added I think.
> > >
> > > So I was probably not clear enough, but I was thinking about
> > > supporting rte_flow_items in rte_flow_classify as the possible key
> > > applications would use to configure their measurements. This should not
> > > require rte_flow supports from the PMDs they would be using, only
> > > rte_flow_item parsing from the rte_flow_classify library.
> > >
> > > Otherwise, DPDK will probably end up with two competing flow
> > > representations. Additionally, it may be interesting for applications
> > > to bind these data directly to rte_flow actions once the
> > > classification has been analyzed.
> > Thanks for clarification, I see now what you and Konstantin is proposing.
> > And yes it makes sense to use rte_flow to define flows in the library, I
> > will update the RFC.
> Does it mean that rte_flow.h must be moved from ethdev to this
> new flow library? Or will it depend of ethdev?
Just a thought: probably move rte_flow.h to lib/librte_net?