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.
