Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] NIC filters support for generic filter

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

> 2014-06-11 17:45, Thomas Monjalon:
> > My main concern is that Vladimir Medvedkin suggested another API and I'd
> > like you give your opinion about it:
> > 		http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-June/003053.html
> > It offers pool number in configuration of the filters.

2014-06-12 08:08, Wu, Jingjing:
> The pool field is used in virtualization scenario. It is acting as one of
> input set during filter matching in ixgbe. 
> My patch didn't consider the virtualization scenario in generic filter
> feature. Because in 82599 datasheet, it is recommended to assign rx queues
> not used by DCB/RSS, that is virtualization without RSS and DCB mode. For
> this mode, current DPDK version makes the number of queue to 1 by default in
> IOV mode. So in this case it makes no sense make pool as a input set and the
> rx queue also need to be set to in this pool, so just keep the consistent
> with flow director who also ignore it in previous version. 
> And further E1000/Niantic/Fortville have different definitions for VF, we
> need to think how to define it more generic.
> And even just need offer pool number in configuration of the filters as what
> Vladimir did, it also need to verify the interworking with Virtualization
> for different kinds of NICs, and the interworking with DCB and RSS which is
> not recommended in 82599's datasheet.
> So I think it will be a good choice to implement generic filter interworking
> with virtualization in future patch. If there is any volunteer to send patch
> for support this concern later, it will be also cool.

Vladimir, do you agree with this analysis?
As you suggested another implementation, I need you acknowledgment for this 
patchset to be integrated.

Thanks
-- 
Thomas