2016-09-23 10:20, Bruce Richardson: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 07:04:37PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2016-09-15 16:46, Iremonger, Bernard: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > When the VF is used in a VM the port ID of the VF is not visible to the > > > PF. > > > I don't think there is another way to do this. > > > > I don't understand why we could not assign a port id to the VF from the > > host instead of having the couple PF port id / VF id. > > Can we enumerate all the VFs associated to a PF? > > Then can we allocate them a port id in the array rte_eth_devices? > > Hi Thomas, > > The VF is not a port visible to DPDK, though, so it shouldn't have a port id > IMHO. DPDK can't actually do anything with it.
You say the contrary below. > The PCI device for the VF is likely passed through to a different VM and being > used there. Unfortunately, the VF still needs certain things done for it by > the > PF, so if the PF is under DPDK control, it needs to provide the functionality > to assist the VF. Why not have a VF_from_PF driver which does the mailbox things? So you can manage the VF from the PF with a simple port id. It really seems to be the cleanest design to me.
