From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mohammad Abdul Awal Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] Port Representor for control and monitoring of VF devices Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 09:40:14 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1504773339-21022-1-git-send-email-mohammad.abdul.awal@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Declan Doherty , dev , Remy Horton , Rony Efraim , Alejandro Lucero To: Alex Rosenbaum Return-path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9FBB5598 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2017 10:40:18 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 22/12/2017 22:33, Alex Rosenbaum wrote: > On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Mohammad Abdul Awal > wrote: >> On 21/12/2017 14:51, Alex Rosenbaum wrote: >>> As described in the links Alejandro referenced earlier, each of the >>> switch ports should be a real PMD, and switch operations should be >>> applied on these PMD ports. >>> This includes the steering redirection of traffic between switch ports >>> [1], port ACL's to block/allow traffic, VST/VGT modes and anti >>> spoofing, link trust mode [3] for promiscuous configuration, mirroring >>> of switch port traffic, and Tx and Rx of switch port traffic to/from >>> VF's port. >> I agree that we need a switch_domain parameter. At the moment we do not have >> APIs implemented for all the switch operations you have mentioned above. So, >> we are planning separate RFC with switch _domain and related APIs. > Sure, we can extend these switch ops in a separate step. > > >>> More over, building this as real PMD ports of a switch device removes >>> the need to add a new broker framework all together. >>> Each vendor just needs to map additional PMD ports during the probing >>> stage. >> That is very much possible as well. If we agree to probe all the ports >> during the initialization phase, we can have all the representors ready >> without any interaction from application and broker. On the other hand, we >> may require a broker structure to enable hotplug support. > hotplug should be supported for any PMD ports, and any BDF type. > I don't understand why do you need the broker framework in order to > support hotplug? By hotplug I did not mean HW hotplug, rather I meant the software hotplug of port representor so that an application can add/delete representor at run time. Regards, Awal. > > Alex