From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 057CD1B211 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 03:14:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Oct 2017 18:14:07 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,502,1500966000"; d="scan'208,217";a="1204054798" Received: from tanjianf-mobl.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.67.64.85]) ([10.67.64.85]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Oct 2017 18:14:05 -0700 To: Bill Bonaparte References: <1585937b-613c-eecf-5b08-d840a3265329@intel.com> <7612e974-4dfd-970e-2bce-f59cfacf1aee@intel.com> Cc: bernard.iremonger@intel.com, huawei.xie@intel.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com, thomas@monjalon.net, david.marchand@6wind.com, shreyansh.jain@nxp.com, pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com, Olivier Matz , yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, DPDK From: "Tan, Jianfeng" Message-ID: <14cbd26b-7d49-eede-16e0-812912f85485@intel.com> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:14:05 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Can xenvirt pmd work in xen guest (aka DomU) without xen-vhost in Dom0 ? X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 01:14:09 -0000 > for me, the most important thing at the moment, is to run our system > on xen guest (aka DomU), with the full functions. the performance > could be a secondary consideration. > most of time, for our guests, full functions, with the > acceptable performance, is fine. > do we have plan to support xen netfront pmd in dpdk ? > in my humble opinion, limited performance is better than "not work" . If you only care about the functionality, you can try AF_PACKET or pcap PMD. Thanks, Jianfeng