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?