From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/25] Support VFD on i40e
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 14:53:28 +0000
Message-ID: <fb7503b4-48d5-0da6-751a-82e501e68e6d@intel.com>
References: <1480637533-37425-1-git-send-email-wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
 <1484032580-60134-1-git-send-email-wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
 <F35DEAC7BCE34641BA9FAC6BCA4A12E71A98F145@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <1598a0c7f80.27fc.bb328046f2889bc8f44aafa891a44dd2@6wind.com>
 <f5290bd1-e968-ae6b-d9c8-2104da11f84b@intel.com>
 <ea5d8fdb-2de3-3dbf-bbb5-5c2099c8c73a@6wind.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "'JOSHI, KAUSTUBH'" <kaustubh@research.att.com>,
 "'DANIELS, EDWARD'" <daniels@research.att.com>,
 "'ZELEZNIAK, ALEX'" <az5157@att.com>
To: Vincent JARDIN <vincent.jardin@6wind.com>,
 "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>, "Lu, Wenzhuo"
 <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45309F614
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 15:53:35 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <ea5d8fdb-2de3-3dbf-bbb5-5c2099c8c73a@6wind.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 1/11/2017 1:14 PM, Vincent JARDIN wrote:
> Le 10/01/2017 à 22:32, Ferruh Yigit a écrit :
>> What do you think to continue high level DPDK PF discussion in mail
>> thread for other pathset? So that we can continue to work on this one.
> 
> First, we need to assess or not if it makes sense to go toward Linux 
> kernel or DPDK based PF. If Linux kernel is used, then DPDK does not 
> need VFD related modifications.

DPDK PF <--> DPDK VF is already supported. This patchset is not
introducing it.

This patchset adds more PF <-> VF communication to a specific driver,
and this is done in PMD specific way, so update is limited to PMD.

>>From my scope, this patchset looks good.

And how assessment can be done, with which quorum, can it be done in a
way without blocking the patchset?

> 
> VFD demonstrates that there are some needs of features, but it pushes 
> the new path of a fork of PF drivers.