Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/i40e: enable statistic reset for VF

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

2017-03-17 09:45, Zhang, Helin:
>From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] 
> >2017-03-17 03:28, Zhang, Helin:
> >> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> >> > 2017-02-23 13:27, Qi Zhang:
> >> > >  static void
> >> > > +i40evf_dev_stats_reset(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) {
> >> > > +	struct i40e_vf *vf = I40EVF_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_VF(dev->data-
> >> > >dev_private);
> >> > > +	/* only DPDK PF support this */
> >> > > +	if (vf->version_major == I40E_DPDK_VERSION_MAJOR) {
> >> > > +		if (i40evf_reset_statistics(dev))
> >> > > +			PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "Reset statistics failed");
> >> > > +	}
> >> > > +}
> >> > 
> >> > One more SR-IOV feature not supported with a Linux PF.
> >> > The basic stats feature must be marked as partially supported in
> >> > 	doc/guides/nics/features/i40e_vf.ini
> >> > See also this email:
> >> > 	http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-March/060063.html
> >> > 
> >> > I wonder whether we should allow such divergence between PF 
> >> > implementations. Intel committed to avoid such fragmentation and 
> >> > keep the SR-IOV messaging standard but it does not happen.
> >> > It is said that we must allow fast innovation in DPDK space.
> >> > I agree but we should also target a good usability of the VF 
> >> > drivers, allowing to replace the PF implementations as needed.
> >> 
> >> Hi Thomas
> >> 
> >> I think I need to clarify a little bit here.
> >> I think we will try our best, but I don't think we can commit. As they 
> >> are on totally different community, and of cause code repositories.

What prevent you from submitting your code to the kernel community?
Note that your statement does not respect the agreed policy:
	http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-January/055224.html
	http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/design.html#pf-and-vf-considerations

> >> > Here is my suggestion: let's accept a VF feature only if the PF 
> >> > support is submitted to both dpdk.org and kernel.org mailing lists.
> >> > I ask to add this topic to the next techboard meeting.
> >> 
> >> Sorry, technically I disagree with this suggestion, as I don't understand why!
> >> I was told DPDK is not Linux, and Linux is not DPDK. Why we want to 
> >> add this dependency on Linux PF host driver? And why just on PF/VF driver feature only?
> >> I think if we can have any good innovative idea on DPDK first, why not 
> >> just have it on DPDK? Then Linux or even other OS/community/Company 
> >> can learn from DPDK and develop their own.
> >
> > It is really a general problem.
> > Here you are adding a feature in a VF driver. But it does not work with
> > some PF drivers.We have the same problem when adding a feature which
> > does not work on BSD or on a CPU architecture.
> > Generally speaking, we have a usability issue when a feature works only
> > with a given environment.
> > And it is worst in the SR-IOV case because a VM can migrate from an
> > hypervisor (with a given PF) to another (and different) one.
> 
> Yes, I understood that's the reality and the issue. But I don't think we can address it with your suggestion.
> Linux is just one of the OS, as you said, FreeBSD, Windows, VMWare,  ...

I am talking about migration from a KVM to another one.
So BSD, Windows and VMware are irrelevant.

> I'd suggest to start another discussion on the tech board to solve that problem, but not limit
> adding new features. They are different topics and things, based on my understanding.

Helin, you just want to add your new code and hide issues.
You don't even bother to document the limitations or the partial support
as I have suggested earlier.
As a maintainer, I have to check the quality and the usability.
I can tell you that I stack the promises "I will fix it later" and
we are still waiting for a lot of them.
That's why, even if you think it is not related, we need sometimes
to block things until they are properly done and completed.