From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
	by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0DBEA0583;
	Thu, 19 Mar 2020 10:26:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 223992B9E;
	Thu, 19 Mar 2020 10:26:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC61F29D6
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 10:26:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47])
 by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 782A85C013F;
 Thu, 19 Mar 2020 05:26:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163])
 by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 19 Mar 2020 05:26:28 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h=
 from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references
 :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp;
 bh=S4/SeAoh25HDPSMzghddS+2sQYdzzcp+Jc14TmknVuI=; b=Y9aHf9j/6tS2
 JP4yVP3NwMQp1ERs3oaNE/KocrSoVu0yWCaa7c5vYjYJbmAGEQWm7ItmOWnnhD/l
 ijwZ9dfTwRy46teS/xYeX9hV/FdJVJvdZgfg78sVrIpSUr7sGgjFXxtgkYWv5vyJ
 X7oNMI+0yocjGroiBT+Ubwhjtt5P3CE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
 messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type
 :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references
 :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender
 :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=S4/SeAoh25HDPSMzghddS+2sQYdzzcp+Jc14TmknV
 uI=; b=UGPihvx/6Iv9SgiGmciWzT0ywV5cAZeMeS4MTowUwtg4eFAporMK6A643
 8GLlGZ0/Ule1K+rFQ243p2h5/ndeaSOg9+/DjiR+bjJLFHMgGVT+8xeZP1NMTtf4
 CHFrbsklaUJDzV3dqMjct9WlORXld4lI66KgZbB4PE2RUxPJm5/7StmeJXWAZ2q1
 qw2/3IHQRf9r4xkeohYjNGBIME/jkhMFgFosRXsrjAj449b5YIb0j80STCg5/pnd
 ZRCoicmdlapvL+NoUFTeFzsiC7VpLZHigbK/Q/9Ja/35ztUVyV3nPbjmyg0gdQok
 wVY5ttjkmHo/WXUieGGr7uwd+5X1A==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:wzpzXrQIIeH0NiNeu_OMxtShy5DU6qzoSK_Ld0T_RrwoQ1594nIF8w>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrudefledgtdefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf
 fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen
 uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne
 cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr
 shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukf
 hppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgr
 rhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:xDpzXsOQOcKTyAtZPdge_5SsoSitrWEf4Nd0p9kxKkgRr4ZqkaGWfw>
 <xmx:xDpzXh7agIxHrNUDbwpgDJUah9gF9K9VE1bHaREx7vagpKgf6kSq4g>
 <xmx:xDpzXvVFJuJ-8RoNLiHMrw7um3eNdth-cuPGFHivyZ0UcBwijot8EA>
 <xmx:xDpzXnjyJ3qgZwPButw5s26c7rud72PMf9WiRC6IwiPtQ1-FbHBsnQ>
Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184])
 by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D26443061CB6;
 Thu, 19 Mar 2020 05:26:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Kiran Kumar Kokkilagadda <kirankumark@marvell.com>
Cc: Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>, Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>,
 Jingjing Wu <jingjing.wu@intel.com>,
 Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>,
 John McNamara <john.mcnamara@intel.com>,
 Marko Kovacevic <marko.kovacevic@intel.com>,
 Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
 Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>, dev@dpdk.org
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 10:26:25 +0100
Message-ID: <16170589.5WZRyvrzyv@xps>
In-Reply-To: <CH2PR18MB3272EA2A7835B0A9FEFBF038ACF40@CH2PR18MB3272.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20200310160609.7434-1-kirankumark@marvell.com>
 <AM6PR05MB5176B86CC535C818A13AC19ADBF60@AM6PR05MB5176.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <CH2PR18MB3272EA2A7835B0A9FEFBF038ACF40@CH2PR18MB3272.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add DBDF action to RTE Flow
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

19/03/2020 10:17, Kiran Kumar Kokkilagadda:
> From: Ori Kam
> > From: Kiran Kumar Kokkilagadda <kirankumark@marvell.com>
> > > From: Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>
> > > > From: kirankumark@marvell.com <kirankumark@marvell.com>
> > > > > From: Kiran Kumar K <kirankumark@marvell.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Adding suuport to DBDF action in the RTE Flow.
> > > > > Application can specify the dbdf value using rte_flow_action_dbdf.
> > > > > Matched traffic will be sent to specified PCI DBDF device.
> > > > >
> > > > I would like to see more detail use case, for example to which
> > > > device / device type will the traffic be routed to?
> > > >
> > >
> > > We have the following use case.
> > > We have 2 PF's pf0, pf1 and corresponding VF's pf0_vf0 , pf1_vf0. And
> > > we have
> > > 3 applications running.
> > > 1st application on pf0 and pf1
> > > 2nd application on pf0_vf0
> > > 3rd application on pf1_vf0.
> > > We want to direct the traffic matching condition1 from application 1
> > > (traffic from both pf0 & pf1) needs to send to  application 2
> > > (pf0_vf0) And matching condition2 from application 1 (traffic from
> > > both pf0 & pf1) needs to send to application 3 (pf1_vf0).
> > > To summarize, we need to send traffic from pf0 to pf1_vf0 and traffic
> > > from pf1 to pf0_vf0. In this case This DBDF action will be useful.
> > >
> > 
> > It seems that what you are describing it the port action with representors, or any
> > other way you wish to implement it.
> 
> Let's say we have a VF with kernel and we want to send the traffic to that VF, then we can't
> Use port action. This will be useful in those scenarios.

Sorry I don't understand.
You mean the VF is managed by a kernel driver while the PF is managed by DPDK?
So what prevents having a VF representor?