From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <michael.qiu@intel.com>
Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD9395952
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue,  4 Aug 2015 19:06:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29])
 by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Aug 2015 10:06:14 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,610,1432623600"; d="scan'208";a="535920462"
Received: from pgsmsx103.gar.corp.intel.com ([10.221.44.82])
 by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Aug 2015 10:06:11 -0700
Received: from shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.154) by
 PGSMSX103.gar.corp.intel.com (10.221.44.82) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
 id 14.3.224.2; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 01:06:10 +0800
Received: from shsmsx101.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.18]) by
 shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.126]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002;
 Wed, 5 Aug 2015 01:06:09 +0800
From: "Qiu, Michael" <michael.qiu@intel.com>
To: "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>, Thomas Monjalon
 <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>, "Liu, Yong" <yong.liu@intel.com>, "Cao,
 Waterman" <waterman.cao@intel.com>
Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] examples: remove l3fwd-vf example
Thread-Index: AQHQvkSPFDhDAFY4sEWIiT6MNmmjnA==
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 17:06:09 +0000
Message-ID: <533710CFB86FA344BFBF2D6802E60286046FF05F@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
References: <1436860647-5862-1-git-send-email-jingjing.wu@intel.com>
 <F35DEAC7BCE34641BA9FAC6BCA4A12E70A8941A9@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <2646739.fctqXc0xZm@xps13>
 <F35DEAC7BCE34641BA9FAC6BCA4A12E70A898517@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] examples: remove l3fwd-vf example
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 17:06:14 -0000

Actually, l3fwd works fine with fm10k vf.

I don't know what's the exact reason of l3fwd-vf still in DPDK, at least we=
 could make full support for vf in l3fwd instead of another sample with mos=
t code are the same compare with l3fwd.

Thanks,
Michael

On 2015/7/22 7:51, Zhang, Helin wrote:

Marvin/Waterman

Could you help to check if l3fwd is good enough for all cases (1g/10/40g, P=
F and VF, single queue/multiple queue)?
We aim to remove l3fwd-vf to reduce an example application which is not so =
necessary.
Thank you!

Regards,
Helin



-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:30 AM
To: Zhang, Helin
Cc: dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org>; Wu, Jingjing
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] examples: remove l3fwd-vf example

2015-07-14 14:50, Zhang, Helin:


From: Wu, Jingjing


Because VF multi-queues can be supported, l3fwd can run on vf.
Suggest to remove the l3fwd-vf example.


Totally agree with this!
But we need the confirmation from validation guys of that l3fwd works
quite well on VF with all NICs (e.g. i350, 82599, x550, xl710, and fm10k).



Helin, any new from validation?