Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Zhang (Networking SW) <xiazh...@nvidia.com> > Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 6:43 AM > To: NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; Wisam > Monther <wis...@nvidia.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Raslan Darawsheh <rasl...@nvidia.com> > Subject: [PATCH] app/flow-perf: add destination ports parameter > > Add destination ports(dst-ports) parameter for port-id action, the parameter > is only valid for port-id action. The parameter is not Must, and the value is > 1 > by default as before if not provided. > > For example: > > $ dpdk-test-flow-perf -w 08:00.0,representor=[0,1] -- --transfer \ > > --ingress --transfer --ether --portmask=0x2 --vxlan-encap \ --port-id > > --dst-ports=0 > > This command means the rule created on representor 0 with port 0 as > destination, since the portmask is 0x2 and dst-ports is 0: > > $ dpdk-test-flow-perf -w 08:00.0,representor=[0,1] \ > > -w 08:00.1,representor=[0,1]-- --transfer --ingress --transfer \ > > --ether --portmask=0x12 --vxlan-encap --port-id --dst-ports=0,3 > > This command means the rules created on both representor 0 of PF 0 and PF > 1, the destination port for the first represontor is PF 0, and the destination > port for the other one it PF 1. > > Signed-off-by: Sean Zhang <xiazh...@nvidia.com>
Do you think it's applicable to use the same option? I mean, usage: --port-id: means default. --port-id=N,M: use the parsing ports? BRs, Wisam Jaddo
