From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com (mail-wi0-f182.google.com [209.85.212.182]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26D02C3C4 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 18:56:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: by wicmv11 with SMTP id mv11so143456519wic.0 for ; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 09:56:04 -0700 (PDT) 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=n9PYTcFBlyR9xchkuXjiAlrbfzAAj1/90lmhJBm38Wc=; b=DAgvW6hYK2FAGedw5SvgVOMnGzoQSUuBH0KheNRJ2JmhNShv5HTBJMF1Xse6pLJYKt 7NJ42qPs6mPw1yNTySE4qxbgK4YJjhwRSqxNY2BA2NNmWBhUTBvYQiAsZOK9HKjKobtf t9pwLu0YgSGBFevFxYUkgddUtuPNMakDXXHmo/Bt+j3mU6do7XucX4G52FCkXqGrPjJs k4xayjygKonleSt8ZwYx8hWf0teTTelghCWX5nQl90o5xV+68F93JIEyGagOdZMJepIN Y2w72EjsbxDir5zYwG3i7flTl6mTGM2nSnvb1IJ1nVK7vTVaGjWaPQzBTriRKQKtfClD Gv8w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnkm6iIc9PmHNwPnXXi+AKaANJjcfR9QEIEQauAqQrIYi7Vr8dILMYbF8aHuRSnPpiVkJzR X-Received: by 10.180.101.138 with SMTP id fg10mr35969369wib.46.1438620964028; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 09:56:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (136-92-190-109.dsl.ovh.fr. [109.190.92.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id pn6sm23763742wjb.36.2015.08.03.09.56.03 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 03 Aug 2015 09:56:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Zhang, Helin" Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 18:54:49 +0200 Message-ID: <2596501.YiU0Cqygmx@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.8 (Linux/4.0.4-2-ARCH; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <1436860647-5862-1-git-send-email-jingjing.wu@intel.com> <2646739.fctqXc0xZm@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 16:56:04 -0000 Any news? Can we remove it from version 2.1? 2015-07-22 14:51, Zhang, Helin: > Marvin/Waterman > > Could you help to check if l3fwd is good enough for all cases (1g/10/40g, PF 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 > > > > 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 fm10k). > > > > Helin, any new from validation?