Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] librte_pmd_packet: add PMD for AF_PACKET-based virtual devices

[Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>]

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 02:03:18AM -0800, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Hi Neil and John,
> 
> I would like to wake up this very old thread.
> 
> 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?

> > > 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?
> 
> Thanks
> -- 
> Thomas
>