On 1/13/2017 11:49 PM, JOSHI, KAUSTUBH (KAUSTUBH) wrote:
> John,
>
> Thanks for comments. To answer a specific question you raised:
>
>> Open question for me on this though is the PF in these SRIOV cases
>> ever being used by DPDK datapath or is it just being leveraged for
>> configuration with
2017-01-13 15:04, John Fastabend:
> I'll comment on the specific features in another email because it
> is helpful to have a list in public mailing list with features folks
> are interested in. Any chance we could get a page up with a list
> of all these and where/when we expect support for them?
Thanks John for the kernel support. I'd like to add one thought on this
need from Joshi:
Also, the kernel drivers have no concept of passing VF messages to upstream
"decision making” (or policy enforcement) software like VFd.
It shall be possible to define some Netlink or policy management
John,
Thanks for comments. To answer a specific question you raised:
> Open question for me on this though is the PF in these SRIOV cases
> ever being used by DPDK datapath or is it just being leveraged for
> configuration with primarily control traffic?
In our case, the answer is yes. We intend
tt.com; az5...@att.com; Chen, Jing D
>>
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/29] Support VFD and DPDK PF + kernel VF
>> on
>> i40e
>>
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> Le 04/01/2017 à 22:09, Scott Daniels a écrit :
>>> With holidays we are a bit late with our
Hi, Vincent,
> -Original Message-
> From: Vincent JARDIN [mailto:vincent.jar...@6wind.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 9:30 PM
> To: Scott Daniels ; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: kaust...@research.att.com; az5...@att.com; Chen, Jing D
>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH
Hi Scott,
Le 04/01/2017 à 22:09, Scott Daniels a écrit :
With holidays we are a bit late with our thoughts, but would like to
toss them into the mix.
Same, I hope I am not missing emails. I do appreciate your arguments, it
provides lot of light. See below,
The original NAK is understand
> Vincent,
>
> Sorry, I missed this reply.
>
>>
>> Le 22/12/2016 à 09:10, Chen, Jing D a écrit :
>> > In the meanwhile, we have some test models ongoing to validate
>> > combination of Linux and DPDK drivers for VF and PF. We'll fully
support
>> below 4 cases going forward.
>> > 1. DPDK PF + DPD
Vincent,
Sorry, I missed this reply.
>
> Le 22/12/2016 à 09:10, Chen, Jing D a écrit :
> > In the meanwhile, we have some test models ongoing to validate
> > combination of Linux and DPDK drivers for VF and PF. We'll fully support
> below 4 cases going forward.
> > 1. DPDK PF + DPDK VF
> > 2. DP
Le 22/12/2016 à 09:10, Chen, Jing D a écrit :
In the meanwhile, we have some test models ongoing to validate combination of
Linux and
DPDK drivers for VF and PF. We'll fully support below 4 cases going forward.
1. DPDK PF + DPDK VF
2. DPDK PF + Linux VF
+ DPDK PF + FreeBSD VF
+ DPDK PF + Windo
pdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/29] Support VFD and DPDK PF + kernel VF
> on
> i40e
>
> Le 20/12/2016 à 05:48, Chen, Jing D a écrit :
> > That's a collaboration with another team. we'll follow-up that but not
> > guarantee
> > it will happen.
> > May I ask if my re
v] [PATCH v5 00/29] Support VFD and DPDK PF + kernel VF
> on i40e
>
> On 12/20/2016 3:18 PM, Vincent JARDIN wrote:
> > Le 20/12/2016 à 05:48, Chen, Jing D a écrit :
> >> That's a collaboration with another team. we'll follow-up that but
> >> not guarantee it wil
On 12/20/2016 3:18 PM, Vincent JARDIN wrote:
> Le 20/12/2016 à 05:48, Chen, Jing D a écrit :
>> That's a collaboration with another team. we'll follow-up that but not
>> guarantee
>> it will happen.
>> May I ask if my reply make it clear? Still NAC for this patch?
>
> Yes still nack, I am not con
Le 20/12/2016 à 05:48, Chen, Jing D a écrit :
That's a collaboration with another team. we'll follow-up that but not guarantee
it will happen.
May I ask if my reply make it clear? Still NAC for this patch?
Yes still nack, I am not confident with this PF approach since you are
breaking Linux PF
Hi,
> -Original Message-
> From: Vincent JARDIN [mailto:vincent.jar...@6wind.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 9:46 PM
> To: Chen, Jing D ; Thomas Monjalon
>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh ; Wu, Jingjing
> ; Zhang, Helin
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v
Le 19/12/2016 à 14:39, Chen, Jing D a écrit :
They will
have concern why VM can have such privilege (like promisc mode). But I need
to check as I know there is some mechanism now to make a VM privileged.
From iproute2's man:
<--
trust on|off - trust the specified VF user. This enables that VF u
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monja...@6wind.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 9:21 PM
> To: Chen, Jing D
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Vincent JARDIN ; Yigit, Ferruh
> ; Wu, Jingjing ; Zhang, Helin
>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v
2016-12-19 09:01, Chen, Jing D:
> Since then, both Linux and DPDK keep developing code. Then, we found it's
> necessary to extend VF capability (Like promiscuous mode). It will be hard to
> ask Linux PF to support that service considering upstream effort in Linux
> world.
Please, could you clarif
Hi, Vincent,
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Vincent JARDIN
> Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 4:36 AM
> To: Yigit, Ferruh ; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Wu, Jingjing ; Zhang, Helin
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 00/29] Suppo
Le 16/12/2016 à 20:02, Ferruh Yigit a écrit :
As we need to support the scenario kernel PF + DPDK VF,
DPDK follows the interface between kernel PF + kernel VF.
Please, it has to be proven that DPDK provides the same interface that
the kernel. It seems insane to duplicate kernel's PF into the D
1, VF Daemon (VFD)
VFD is an idea to control all the VFs from PF.
As we need to support the scenario kernel PF + DPDK VF,
DPDK follows the interface between kernel PF + kernel VF.
We don't want to introduce too many new messages between PF and VF.
So this patch set adds some new APIs to control
21 matches
Mail list logo
