On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 09:13:14PM -0700, Matthew Hall wrote:

Vladimir,

One thing I was confused, you published the changes to rte_lpm_tbl24_entry but 
you didn't say what you did to change rte_lpm_tbl8_entry, as that one only had 
an 8-bit next_hop as well. I wanted to be sure I didn't change it wrong and 
break something.

Hopefully Stephen can make his bug fixes available so I could add all of this 
together and try to make a patchset for dpdk-next to test it all out. Would be 
a huge win compared to all the crappy LPM code I found on the Internet.

Matthew.

Another thing, this part errors out now. Not sure if it's just a performance warning or if it will break the code when I just comment it out... ;)

RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct rte_lpm_tbl24_entry) != 2);
RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct rte_lpm_tbl8_entry) != 2);

/vagrant/external/dpdk/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c:162:2: error: array size is negative
        RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct rte_lpm_tbl24_entry) != 2);
        ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/vagrant/external/dpdk/build/include/rte_common.h:178:21: note: expanded from macro
      'RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON'
        ((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2*!!(condition)]));   \
                           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/vagrant/external/dpdk/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c:163:2: error: array size is negative
        RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct rte_lpm_tbl8_entry) != 2);
        ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/vagrant/external/dpdk/build/include/rte_common.h:178:21: note: expanded from macro
      'RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON'
        ((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2*!!(condition)]));   \
                           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Matthew.