Hi Pascal, Thanks for the comments, Please find my updates inline
> -----Original Message----- > From: Pascal Mazon [mailto:pascal.ma...@6wind.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 12:22 PM > To: Varghese, Vipin <vipin.vargh...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Mcnamara, > John <john.mcnam...@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > Cc: Kovacevic, Marko <marko.kovace...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev,v1] net/tap: add tun support > > Personally, I'm mostly ok with this. > I added a couple of comments inline. > <snipped> > > +The TUN PMD allows user to create a TUN device on host. The PMD > > +allows user to transmit and recieve packets via DPDK API calls with L3 > header and payload. > s/recieve/receive/ Thanks, making the changes for the next version > > +The devices in host can be accessed via ``ifconfig`` or ``ip`` > > +command. TUN interfaces are passed to DPDK ``rte_eal_init`` arguments > > +as ``--vdev=net_tunX``, where X stands for unique id, example:: <snipped> > > > > static int tap_unit; > > +static int tun_unit; > > + > > +static int tap_type; > I'm not a huge fan of considering "tap_type = 1 means it's a TAP device". > Wouldn't it be clearer to have a tuntap_type variable and an enum > TUNTAP_TYPE with the two types; then checking for tuntap_type == > TUN_TYPE or tuntap == TAP_TYPE? > It's not a deal breaker though, just a consideration. Thanks, my first idea was use the same. Later argued myself in using 'tap_type' since the check for assigning MAC address goes well. Hence I hope not making the change 'tuntap_type' is ok? > > +static char tuntap_name[8]; > > > > static volatile uint32_t tap_trigger; /* Rx trigger */ > > <snipped> > > RTE_PMD_REGISTER_PARAM_STRING(net_tap, > > ETH_TAP_IFACE_ARG "=<string> " > The rest looks fine. > > Regards, > Pascal
