Hi Thomas, > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 11:47 AM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin > Cc: Qiu, Michael; Zhang, Helin; Liu, Yong; Cao, Waterman; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] examples: remove l3fwd-vf example > > 2015-08-04 17:12, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Qiu, Michael > > > Actually, l3fwd works fine with fm10k vf. > > > > > > I don't know what's the exact reason of l3fwd-vf still in DPDK, > > > at least we could make full support for vf in l3fwd instead of another > > > sample with most code are the same compare with l3fwd. > > > > Right now, l3fwd is not able to work properly for cases where number of > > forwarding lcores > > exceeds number of tx queues on any active port. > > As an example: > > 2 forwarding lcores and a port with just 1 TX queue (e1000 legacy device). > > > > To make l3fwd work for such cases you need to add some sort of > > synchronisation on TX path. > > Which means one of 2 ways: > > either introduce different TX path into l3fwd (one with sync if > > legacy/virual device is used, another without) > > and select it on process startup/config phase, > > or sync overhead for fastpath. > > Any news about removing l3fwd-vf example? > > l3fwd has been reworked but l3fwd-power, l3fwd-vf and l3fwd-thread are > still based on the old l3fwd with APP_LOOKUP_METHOD compile-time flag.
As far as I know, no-one from Intel side is working on it right now. Konstantin
