On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:25 PM David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hello Jerin, Kiran,
Hello David, > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:26 AM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > > > > We have the following use case. > > > > > We have 2 PF's pf0, pf1 and corresponding VF's pf0_vf0 , pf1_vf0. And > > > > > we have > > > > > 3 applications running. > > > > > 1st application on pf0 and pf1 > > > > > 2nd application on pf0_vf0 > > > > > 3rd application on pf1_vf0. > > > > > We want to direct the traffic matching condition1 from application 1 > > > > > (traffic from both pf0 & pf1) needs to send to application 2 > > > > > (pf0_vf0) And matching condition2 from application 1 (traffic from > > > > > both pf0 & pf1) needs to send to application 3 (pf1_vf0). > > > > > To summarize, we need to send traffic from pf0 to pf1_vf0 and traffic > > > > > from pf1 to pf0_vf0. In this case This DBDF action will be useful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that what you are describing it the port action with > > > > representors, or any > > > > other way you wish to implement it. > > > > > > Let's say we have a VF with kernel and we want to send the traffic to > > > that VF, then we can't > > > Use port action. This will be useful in those scenarios. > > > > Sorry I don't understand. > > You mean the VF is managed by a kernel driver while the PF is managed by > > DPDK? > > So what prevents having a VF representor? > > The discussion did not reach a conclusion. > Looking at patchwork, I can see it set to "Not Applicable". > > Do you still expect some work on this subject? No. We dont need API change, we can manage with VF representor. > > > Thanks. > > -- > David Marchand >
