From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <helin.zhang@intel.com>
Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D51EF594B
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:51:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29])
 by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2015 07:51:18 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,523,1432623600"; d="scan'208";a="528326285"
Received: from kmsmsx152.gar.corp.intel.com ([172.21.73.87])
 by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2015 07:51:17 -0700
Received: from shsmsx101.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.153) by
 KMSMSX152.gar.corp.intel.com (172.21.73.87) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
 id 14.3.224.2; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 22:51:14 +0800
Received: from shsmsx104.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.129]) by
 SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.246]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002;
 Wed, 22 Jul 2015 22:51:12 +0800
From: "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>
To: 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: AQHQvgrBTa10K1/bu0mVVBWFlESt4p3bC7mAgAvE8ACAAM5AwA==
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:51:12 +0000
Message-ID: <F35DEAC7BCE34641BA9FAC6BCA4A12E70A898517@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
References: <1436860647-5862-1-git-send-email-jingjing.wu@intel.com>
 <F35DEAC7BCE34641BA9FAC6BCA4A12E70A8941A9@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <2646739.fctqXc0xZm@xps13>
In-Reply-To: <2646739.fctqXc0xZm@xps13>
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: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:51:20 -0000

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; Wu, Jingjing
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] examples: remove l3fwd-vf example
>=20
> 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 fm10=
k).
>=20
> Helin, any new from validation?