> 2014-06-11 17:45, Thomas Monjalon: > > My main concern is that Vladimir Medvedkin suggested another API and I'd > > like you give your opinion about it: > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-June/003053.html > > It offers pool number in configuration of the filters.
2014-06-12 08:08, Wu, Jingjing: > The pool field is used in virtualization scenario. It is acting as one of > input set during filter matching in ixgbe. > My patch didn't consider the virtualization scenario in generic filter > feature. Because in 82599 datasheet, it is recommended to assign rx queues > not used by DCB/RSS, that is virtualization without RSS and DCB mode. For > this mode, current DPDK version makes the number of queue to 1 by default in > IOV mode. So in this case it makes no sense make pool as a input set and the > rx queue also need to be set to in this pool, so just keep the consistent > with flow director who also ignore it in previous version. > And further E1000/Niantic/Fortville have different definitions for VF, we > need to think how to define it more generic. > And even just need offer pool number in configuration of the filters as what > Vladimir did, it also need to verify the interworking with Virtualization > for different kinds of NICs, and the interworking with DCB and RSS which is > not recommended in 82599's datasheet. > So I think it will be a good choice to implement generic filter interworking > with virtualization in future patch. If there is any volunteer to send patch > for support this concern later, it will be also cool. Vladimir, do you agree with this analysis? As you suggested another implementation, I need you acknowledgment for this patchset to be integrated. Thanks -- Thomas
