On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Mohammad Abdul Awal <mohammad.abdul.a...@intel.com> 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? Alex