From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/29] Support VFD and DPDK PF + kernel VF
 on i40e
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:42:12 +0000
Message-ID: <0e2d4fa0-cba6-7190-56cd-5ce757c6cfd9@intel.com>
References: <4341B239C0EFF9468EE453F9E9F4604D3C5CA3DA@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <586D647A.5040607@research.att.com>
 <ac872854-11c0-ba37-8261-c265d1dc80db@6wind.com>
 <4341B239C0EFF9468EE453F9E9F4604D3C5D9598@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <58795CE3.4080403@gmail.com>
 <6FE891CC-F927-4719-B7F8-BCF8EB4DEF9F@research.att.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Chen, Jing D" <jing.d.chen@intel.com>,
 Vincent JARDIN <vincent.jardin@6wind.com>,
 "DANIELS, EDWARD S (EDWARD)" <daniels@research.att.com>,
 "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "ZELEZNIAK, ALEX" <az5157@att.com>,
 "Fastabend, John R" <john.r.fastabend@intel.com>
To: "JOSHI, KAUSTUBH (KAUSTUBH)" <kaustubh@research.att.com>,
 John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E6CB106A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 12:42:15 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <6FE891CC-F927-4719-B7F8-BCF8EB4DEF9F@research.att.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 1/13/2017 11:49 PM, JOSHI, KAUSTUBH  (KAUSTUBH) wrote:
> John,
> 
> Thanks for comments. To answer a specific question you raised:
> 
>> Open question for me on this though is the PF in these SRIOV cases
>> ever being used by DPDK datapath or is it just being leveraged for
>> configuration with primarily control traffic?
> 
> In our case, the answer is yes. We intend to use the PF through DPDK to house a high speed packet mirror function for capturing packet traces from VFs (for ops etc). 
> 
> However, in theory, this *can* be done through an extra VF as well, so I didn't bring up that particular point as being a deciding factor in this debate.

Is it valid use case to run DPDK enabled virtual switch on PF?
I believe this is something you can't move to an extra VF?

> 
>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 6:04 PM, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Open question for me on this though is the PF in these SRIOV cases
>> ever being used by DPDK datapath or is it just being leveraged for
>> configuration with primarily control traffic?