On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:05:08 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > >> We basically need to do some feasability research to see if we can > >> actually meet all the requirements for switchdev on i40e. We have been > >> getting mixed messages where we are given a great many "yes, but" type > >> answers. For i40e we are looking into it but I don't have high > >> confidence in our ability to actually support it in hardare/firmware. > >> If it were as easy as you have been led to believe, we would have done > >> it months ago when we were researching the requirements to support > >> switchdev > > > > wait, Sridhar made seven rounds of his submission (this is the v7 > > pointer [1]) and you > > still don't know if what you were attempting to push upstream can > > work, something is > > weird here, can you clarify? Jeff? > > Not weird so much as stubborn. The patches were being pushed based on > the assumption that the community would accept a NIC generating port > representors that didn't necessarily pass traffic, and then even when > we had them passing traffic the PF still wasn't configured to handle > being the default destination for traffic without any rules > associated, instead VFs would directly send to the outside world.
Perhaps the way forward is to lift the requirement on passing traffic, as long as the limitation is clearly expressed to the users.
