On Tue, 06 Oct 2020 00:41:55 +0200 Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote:
> 15/09/2020 16:47, Stephen Hemminger: > > Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote: > > > On 9/15/2020 3:03 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > > Vdev_netvsc has been around for several years. It no longer needs > > > > to be marked experimental. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> > > > > --- > > > > -Microsoft vdev_netvsc - EXPERIMENTAL > > > > +Microsoft vdev_netvsc > > > > M: Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com> > > > > F: drivers/net/vdev_netvsc/ > > > > F: doc/guides/nics/vdev_netvsc.rst > > > > > > As far as I remember 'vdev_netvsc' was interim solution until 'netvsc' > > > was ready. In this patchset 'netvsc' is also becoming mature. > > > > > > Wouldn't be easier to keep 'vdev_netvsc' experimental to be able to > > > remove it soon? > > > > Let me discuss with Long Li and management. > > Maybe replace EXPERIMENTAL with DEPRECATED in 20.11. > > Would be strange to switch from experimental to deprecated :) > > +Cc Matan > > I think you still need this platform driver (with failsafe and tap) > in case you need rte_flow. Or is it well supported with netvsc PMD? This needs more discussion. Netvsc PMD does not support rte_flow because there is not a good/complete implementation of rte_flow library in pure software form. It might be possible using the BPF stuff that tap supports. I do not know of anybody who is using vdev_netvsc/failsafe with rte_flow. Part of the problem is that the TAP implementation of rte_flow supports a much smaller subset of features than the VF device (MLX).
