2016-09-12 16:28, Iremonger, Bernard: > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:10:18AM +0100, Bernard Iremonger wrote: > > > Add new API functions to configure and manage VF's on a NIC. > > > > > > add rte_eth_dev_vf_ping function. > > > add rte_eth_dev_set_vf_vlan_anti_spoof function. > > > add rte_eth_dev_set_vf_mac_anti_spoof function. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: azelezniak <alexz at att.com> > > > > > > add rte_eth_dev_set_vf_vlan_strip function. > > > add rte_eth_dev_set_vf_vlan_insert function. > > > add rte_eth_dev_set_loopback function. > > > add rte_eth_dev_set_all_queues_drop function. > > > add rte_eth_dev_set_vf_split_drop_en function add > > > rte_eth_dev_set_vf_mac_addr function. > > > > Do we really need to expose VF specific functions here? > > It can be generic(PF/VF) function indexed only through port_id. > > (example: as rte_eth_dev_set_vlan_anti_spoof(uint8_t port_id, uint8_t on)) > > For instance, In Thunderx PMD, We are not exposing a separate port_id for > > PF. We only enumerate 0..N VFs as 0..N ethdev port_id > > Our intention with this patch is to control the VF from the PF. > > The following librte_ether functions already work in a similar way: > > rte_eth_dev_set_vf_rxmode(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t vf, uint16_t rx_mode, > uint8_t on) > > rte_eth_dev_set_vf_rx(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t vf, uint8_t on) > > rte_eth_dev_set_vf_tx(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t vf, uint8_t on) > > int rte_eth_set_vf_rate_limit(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t vf, uint16_t tx_rate, > uint64_t q_msk)
I have a bad feeling with these functions dedicated to VF from PF. Are we sure there is no other way? I mean we just need to know the VF with a port ID.
