From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [RFC] examples: remove l3fwd-vf example Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 18:54:49 +0200 Message-ID: <2596501.YiU0Cqygmx@xps13> References: <1436860647-5862-1-git-send-email-jingjing.wu@intel.com> <2646739.fctqXc0xZm@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: "Zhang, Helin" Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com (mail-wi0-f182.google.com [209.85.212.182]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26D02C3C4 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 18:56:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: by wicmv11 with SMTP id mv11so143456519wic.0 for ; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 09:56:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Any news? Can we remove it from version 2.1? 2015-07-22 14:51, Zhang, Helin: > Marvin/Waterman > > Could you help to check if l3fwd is good enough for all cases (1g/10/40g, PF and VF, single queue/multiple queue)? > We aim to remove l3fwd-vf to reduce an example application which is not so necessary. > Thank you! > > Regards, > Helin > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:30 AM > > To: Zhang, Helin > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Wu, Jingjing > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] examples: remove l3fwd-vf example > > > > 2015-07-14 14:50, Zhang, Helin: > > > From: Wu, Jingjing > > > > Because VF multi-queues can be supported, l3fwd can run on vf. > > > > Suggest to remove the l3fwd-vf example. > > > Totally agree with this! > > > But we need the confirmation from validation guys of that l3fwd works > > > quite well on VF with all NICs (e.g. i350, 82599, x550, xl710, and fm10k). > > > > Helin, any new from validation?