On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 12:13:26 -0700 Cliff Burdick <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Stephen, it would definitely not be worthwhile to repeat everything > that's already tested with testpmd. I was thinking that given that there > already is a "flow_parse" function that does almost everything needed, > something like that could be exposed. If we think of the testpmd flow > string as a sort of "IR" for string flow specification, that would allow > others to implement higher-level transform of a schema like JSON or YAML > into the testpmd language. Due to the complexity of testpmd and how it's > the source of true for testing flows, I think it's too great of an ask to > have testpmd support a new type of parsing. My only suggestion would be to > take what already exists and expose it in a public API that is included in > a DPDK install. > > If you look at the "flow_classify" example in DPDK you can already see that > for that application someone had to write another flow text parser for a > format they made up. Instead, that example could be converted over to this > other API as well. Please don't top post. The naming issue is that almost all libraries in DPDK start with rte_ prefix and the testpmd functions do not. The flow_classify example is pretty much abandonware at this point. Code is not updated, other than build breakages. Last time I looked at it noticed lots of code reinvention useless code, and only supports IPv4. It really needs a rewrite.
