From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: i40e SR-IOV with Linux PF
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:30:37 +0100
Message-ID: <4821072.3Tgk4G3lTr@xps13>
References: <248236628.l6b5mhHNAu@xps13> <1623193.ZGhhn5RSHY@xps13>
 <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F810CF32CE@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>, "Chen,
 Jing D" <jing.d.chen@intel.com>, "Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
 "vincent.jardin@6wind.com" <vincent.jardin@6wind.com>, dev@dpdk.org
To: "Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com (mail-wm0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9795B1075
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:30:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id t189so58838177wmt.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 02:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F810CF32CE@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.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>

2017-03-14 04:44, Wu, Jingjing:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > > Hi i40e developers,
> > >
> > > Referring to the VFD discussion, I thought basic behaviours were the
> > > same regardless of the PF driver:
> > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-December/053056.html
> > > "
> > > > In the meanwhile, we have some test models ongoing to validate
> > > > combination of Linux and DPDK drivers for VF and PF.
> > > > We'll fully support below 4 cases going forward.
> > > > 1. DPDK PF + DPDK VF
> > > > 2. DPDK PF + Linux VF
> > > > 3. Linux PF + DPDK VF
> > > > 4. Linux PF + Linux VF (it's not our scope)
> > > [...]
> > > > Linux PF + DPDK VF has been tested with 1.0 API long time ago.
> > > > There is some test activities ongoing.
> > > "
> > >
> > > I think the Linux PF case is important and deserves more consideration.
> > > When looking at the code, specifically i40evf_vlan_offload_set() and
> > > i40evf_vlan_pvid_set(), I read this:
> > > "
> > >     /* Linux pf host doesn't support vlan offload yet */
> > >     if (vf->version_major == I40E_DPDK_VERSION_MAJOR) { "
> > >
> > > Is there some work in progress on Linux side to get the same behaviour
> > > as with a DPDK PF?
> > >
> 
> As I know, VFD features are marked with an "EXPERIMENTAL" tag.
> And we are working on the extendable interface (feature based) with
> PF kernel driver. 

The VLAN offload is not a VFD feature. It is a basic driver feature.
It is said that it is supported in the documentation but it is not
with a Linux PF.

Please consider the rest of my email:

> > At least, it must be documented in
> >       doc/guides/nics/features/i40e_vf.ini
> > and marked as partially supported (P instead of Y) in
> >       doc/guides/nics/i40e.rst