Hi Andrew, > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Iremonger, Bernard > Sent: Friday, December 2, 2016 10:59 AM > To: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo > <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 00/31] Support VFD and DPDK PF + kernel VF > on i40e > > Hi Andrew, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Andrew > Rybchenko > > Sent: Friday, December 2, 2016 9:00 AM > > To: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 00/31] Support VFD and DPDK PF + kernel > > VF on i40e > > > > On 12/02/2016 03:11 AM, Wenzhuo Lu wrote: > > > 1, VF Daemon (VFD) > > > VFD is an idea to control all the VFs from PF. > > > As we need to support the scenario kernel PF + DPDK VF, DPDK follows > > > the interface between kernel PF + kernel VF. We don't want to > > > introduce too many new messages between PF and VF. So this patch set > > > adds some new APIs to control VFs directly from PF. > > > The new APIs include, > > > 1) set VF MAC anti-spoofing > > > 2) set VF VLAN anti-spoofing > > > 3) set TX loopback > > > 4) set VF unicast promiscuous mode > > > 5) set VF multicast promiscuous mode > > > 6) set VF MTU > > > 7) get/reset VF stats > > > 8) set VF MAC address > > > 9) set VF VLAN stripping > > > 10) VF VLAN insertion > > > 12) set VF broadcast mode > > > 12) set VF VLAN tag > > > 13) set VF VLAN filter > > > VFD also includes VF to PF mailbox message management by APP. When > > > PF receives mailbox messages from VF, PF should call the callback > > > provided by APP to know if they're permitted to be processed. > > > > The patch series adds i40e-specific API functions for VF control > > (advertise link status change, MAC anti-spoofing, VLAN anti-spoofing, > > promiscuous mode, MAC change, VLAN controls), but RTE API is added to > > get VF stats. I'm wondering why. > > Corresponding patches do not explain why i40e-specific API is added > > instead of generic RTE API. IMHO, it is hardly convenient for applications. > > (I guess it was a discussion and decision, but I've failed to find in the > archive). > > > > Andrew. > > There was a discussion previously in DPDK 16.11 about this approach being > used for the ixgbe PMD. > I have attached the email thread. > > Regards, > > Bernard.
The attached email did not get through for some reason. Here is a link to the email archive. http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-September/047786.html Regards, Bernard.
