Hi Jerin, <snip>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] librte_ether: add API's for VF > management > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:10:18AM +0100, Bernard Iremonger wrote: > > Add new API functions to configure and manage VF's on a NIC. > > > > add rte_eth_dev_vf_ping function. > > add rte_eth_dev_set_vf_vlan_anti_spoof function. > > add rte_eth_dev_set_vf_mac_anti_spoof function. > > > > Signed-off-by: azelezniak <alexz at att.com> > > > > add rte_eth_dev_set_vf_vlan_strip function. > > add rte_eth_dev_set_vf_vlan_insert function. > > add rte_eth_dev_set_loopback function. > > add rte_eth_dev_set_all_queues_drop function. > > add rte_eth_dev_set_vf_split_drop_en function add > > rte_eth_dev_set_vf_mac_addr function. > > Do we really need to expose VF specific functions here? > It can be generic(PF/VF) function indexed only through port_id. > (example: as rte_eth_dev_set_vlan_anti_spoof(uint8_t port_id, uint8_t on)) > For instance, In Thunderx PMD, We are not exposing a separate port_id for > PF. We only enumerate 0..N VFs as 0..N ethdev port_id Our intention with this patch is to control the VF from the PF. The following librte_ether functions already work in a similar way: rte_eth_dev_set_vf_rxmode(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t vf, uint16_t rx_mode, uint8_t on) rte_eth_dev_set_vf_rx(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t vf, uint8_t on) rte_eth_dev_set_vf_tx(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t vf, uint8_t on) int rte_eth_set_vf_rate_limit(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t vf, uint16_t tx_rate, uint64_t q_msk) > > > increment LIBABIVER to 5. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger at intel.com> > > --- > > lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 159 +++++++++++++++++++++++ > > lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h | 223 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > lib/librte_ether/rte_ether_version.map | 9 ++ > > 3 files changed, 391 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > > b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c index 1388ea3..2a3d2ae 100644 > > --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > > +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > > @@ -2306,6 +2306,22 @@ rte_eth_dev_default_mac_addr_set(uint8_t > > port_id, struct ether_addr *addr) } > > > > int > > +rte_eth_dev_set_vf_mac_addr(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t vf, struct > > +ether_addr *addr) { > > + struct rte_eth_dev *dev; > > + > > + RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -ENODEV); > > + > > + if (!is_valid_assigned_ether_addr(addr)) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > + dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id]; > > + RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->set_vf_mac_addr, - > ENOTSUP); > > + > > + return (*dev->dev_ops->set_vf_mac_addr)(dev, vf, addr); } > > + > > +int > > rte_eth_dev_set_vf_rxmode(uint8_t port_id, uint16_t vf, > > uint16_t rx_mode, uint8_t on) > > { > > @@ -2490,6 +2506,149 @@ rte_eth_dev_set_vf_vlan_filter(uint8_t > port_id, uint16_t vlan_id, > > vf_mask, vlan_on); > > } > > > > +int > > +rte_eth_dev_set_vf_vlan_anti_spoof(uint8_t port_id, > > + uint16_t vf, uint8_t on) > > +{ > > + struct rte_eth_dev *dev; > > + > > + RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -ENODEV); > > + > > + dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id]; > > + if (vf > 63) { > > PMD may have more than 64 VFs. Yes, it would be better to check on max_vfs, the same way as the already implemented functions mentioned above. > > > > + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("VF VLAN anti spoof:VF %d > > 63\n", vf); > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } > > + > > + RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*dev->dev_ops- > >set_vf_vlan_anti_spoof, -ENOTSUP); > > + (*dev->dev_ops->set_vf_vlan_anti_spoof)(dev, vf, on); > > + return 0; > > +} > > + Thanks for reviewing. Regards, Bernard.