From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ACFE7EB3 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:47:47 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id ex7so711130wid.6 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 03:57:45 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=Ijtma7FC9aJwmhREu3FvdxHILi9kgezGhKSpFhrw8Kk=; b=TMstKZVXivcueHMi7b09ScpUJNRvPf8/UhUtFXQnWWneW4ap00lGitVmyMFmjzg3kB ArJai49phkfg546cvJF13fbUTv46AG2EG5w6iJNedUgl3cfI/gkOVneYzafPb9Hgz4ex 5wfHQ0lUjZSIcPYvwit+SfdTW3LOp8L9JeFZZqTLuExv7UPEctX2PL71mlpP54HS1+Pw OefGNni7klWIi0pXKIojJm5k0sqP7j4DIS+oIYpaUPxzE7GODfxiMcnSjRb9Y1OKFdta z/aeNO5z3ea3rt1P9FXV1KhLgZz9+QBkbuh8g4hNaqaCpt1zz2g2RjEyMh6XNN5UUdT8 YSjg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkxOhs0hNbKQ3uQH9rIdRdYWW4M6qfvUqKaMHq8O6KuJqlKYGROLBlKvUQR64Nr7TnN1buR X-Received: by 10.195.13.14 with SMTP id eu14mr3105461wjd.31.1415879865589; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 03:57:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (136-92-190-109.dsl.ovh.fr. [109.190.92.136]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id s10sm29508731wjw.29.2014.11.13.03.57.42 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Nov 2014 03:57:42 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Neil Horman , John Linville Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:57:25 +0100 Message-ID: <1958929.j3reG6p4bY@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.2 (Linux/3.17.2-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20141113111428.GA13253@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <1405024369-30058-1-git-send-email-linville@tuxdriver.com> <1898542.t3c6y266ZQ@xps13> <20141113111428.GA13253@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] librte_pmd_packet: add PMD for AF_PACKET-based virtual devices X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:47:47 -0000 2014-11-13 06:14, Neil Horman: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 02:03:18AM -0800, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2014-10-08 15:14, Neil Horman: > > > On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 05:57:46PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 2014-09-29 11:05, Bruce Richardson: > > > > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:08:55AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:28:05AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > > 3) There is no test associated with this PMD. > > > > > > That would have been a great comment to make a few months back, though whats > > > > > > wrong with testpmd here? That seems to be the same test that every other pmd > > > > > > uses. What exactly are you looking for? > > > > > > > > I was thinking of testing behaviour with different kernel configurations and > > > > unit tests for --vdev options. But it's not a major blocker. > > > > > > > Thats fine with me. If theres a set of unit tests that you have documentation > > > for, I'm sure we would be happy to run them. I presume you just want all the > > > pmd vdev option exercised? Any specific sets of kernel configurations? > > > > I don't really know which tests are needed. It could be a mix of unit tests > > and functionnal tests described in a test plan. > > The goal is to be able to validate the behaviour and check there is no > > regression. Ideally some corner cases could be described. > > I'm OK to integrate it as is. But future maintenance will probably need > > such inputs for validation tests. > > > Do you have an example set of tests that the other pmd's have followed for this? You can check this: http://dpdk.org/browse/tools/dts/tree/test_plans/pmd_test_plan.rst http://dpdk.org/browse/tools/dts/tree/test_plans/pmd_bonded_test_plan.rst As I said, we can integrate AF_PACKET PMD without such test plan. But we are going to improve testing of many areas in DPDK. > > > > If RedHat is committed for its maintenance, it could integrated in release 1.8. > > > > But I'd like it to be renamed as pmd_af_packet (or a better name) instead of > > > > pmd_packet. > > > > > > > John L. is on his way to plumbers at the moment, so is unable to comment, but > > > I'll try to get a few cycles to change the name of the PMD around. And yes, I > > > thought that maintenance was implicit. He's the author, of course he'll take > > > care of it :). And I'll be glad to help > > > > Do you have time in coming days to rebase and rename this PMD for inclusion > > in 1.8.0 release? Do you think a sub-tree with pull request model would help you for maintenance of this PMD? -- Thomas