Are you on some old vpp version?
We did recently what i think you are asking for, port_id is now decoupled from
device_index...
--
Damjan
> On 17 Aug 2018, at 10:15, Andrzej Ostruszka wrote:
>
> Hello all
>
> I'm new to VPP so please bear with my ignorance in its
> architecture/internals/development process :).
>
> I'd like to ask for some change regarding DPDK plugin - to be specific
> to differentiate between "device index" (in device table) and "device
> id" (the DPDK port ID). More information about the change is below and
> the proposed patch is in the attachment (since I'm not aware yet of the
> process to proposed them - if there is any).
>
> The background for the change is as follows: I've developed a logical
> PMD for DPDK that is meant to split different type of traffic (read some
> "tag") to different "logical" ports while under the hood for actual
> transmission a "physical" port is used. The driver on the RX side takes
> care of the finding the correct "logical" port for given tag, stripping
> it and passing to the port and on TX side its job is to insert the tag
> and pass it to the "physical" port for transmission. It works with
> test-pmd and l2fwd DPDK applications but our customer wishes to use it
> also with VPP and here I needed to make some changes which I'd like to
> upstream now.
>
> From the above description you can see that for N logical ports there
> are N+1 (at least) actual DPDK ports used. So the situation is a bit
> like "reversed bonding driver" - in bonding PMD the are many "physical"
> ports that are grouped to form one "logical" link, and in my case this
> is reversed.
>
> I've decided to make use of the new DPDK API "rte_eth_dev_owner_new/set"
> (introduced by commit 5b7ba31148a8b and still marked as "experimental")
> because this makes much easier for other applications (like VPP) to not
> depend on the internals of given PMD - for example I did not have to
> touch testpmd and l2fwd apps from DPDK to make them work since they were
> already using/compatible with the new API.
>
> This however requires some changes in VPP to make it work. Previously
> you simply assumed that DPDK port IDs start with 0 and assumed 1 to 1
> correspondence between index in internal table with DPDK port id. With
> the use of some "internal/owned" DPDK ports this is no longer true so
> what I am proposing is to add 'device_id' to 'dpdk_device_t' and make
> use of it when passing to RTE functions and use 'RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV'
> macro instead of plain 'for' loops starting with 0.
>
> The patch in the attachment is what I have used for our customer. Note
> however that this was my first contact with VPP so there might be
> something wrong with it or I might have missed some other places that
> also need an update. Also note that since the "ownership" API in DPDK
> is still marked as experimental then you'll need to add
> "-Wno-deprecated-declarations" to your compilation flags in platform
> files (I'm using a separate one so don't have patch for you).
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
> Best regards
> Andrzej
> <0001-plugins-dpdk-do-not-use-internal-index-for-port-id.patch>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
>
> View/Reply Online (#10193): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/10193
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/24610614/675642
> Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/unsub [dmar...@me.com]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#10201): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/10201
Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/24610614/21656
Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io
Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
