From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] NIC filters support for generic filter Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:36:31 +0200 Message-ID: <27520622.tiYQNKLyvh@xps13> References: <1400895442-32433-1-git-send-email-jingjing.wu@intel.com> <2116871.SYCYqgDKRI@xps13> <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F8A8BBB5@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: Vladimir Medvedkin Return-path: In-Reply-To: <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F8A8BBB5-0J0gbvR4kTg/UvCtAeCM4rfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" > 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