From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com (mail-wi0-f171.google.com [209.85.212.171]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64B9AC340 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:51:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so22419951wib.0 for ; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:51:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Uv02UK9SNCQNzSRVwTdk65t6pP91aG+h7Xh0z4EOBTc=; b=PGye2X83XY811D1OFocLQxQaZM/SEdcqCGwYf04G1e9VvAitYikX0B0WCRXJWVZmym wwcjRNokTm1DhALZcbekXzNFbojAwAR/rAhjM7ZzsjvMEMEmTX7dM9V1dvpkbO8WVXjx yy79Gvwbwlfwkm5ivPzW2lC0jwEZdHGi6XAGvNuL+EKycVqACVDeo2WawzeA9WCwEGka nJFlRNaK4uk8lwD+gLyPjpxSK4Zc+v9R7PkE1oXuyU28SGPueaSmYlH6wqbBv/D7wiUe stqtV76+2MDm+5NUVCFvLh+0pDXpwzZ3pdjiPHnXc4wnMp+7dmmAXyl4PVUNyvDt/EVN I5vw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkV3F10ZitMj86xW8byLOCf8YN9FNmqpSLjghMTkdL6W0sQ9Eq3dH883lpTGR6ye7q8/LjU X-Received: by 10.180.21.244 with SMTP id y20mr7694905wie.65.1438692710187; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:51:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from saturne.dev.6wind.com (6wind.net2.nerim.net. [213.41.151.210]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k4sm2238944wix.19.2015.08.04.05.51.48 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:51:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55C0B564.1090509@6wind.com> Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:51:48 +0200 From: Vincent JARDIN Organization: www.6wind.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Monjalon , "Ouyang, Changchun" References: <1425602726-26538-1-git-send-email-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20150306082436.43415409@urahara> <205454145.ebl7zG6qks@xps13> In-Reply-To: <205454145.ebl7zG6qks@xps13> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] virtio: allow running w/o vlan filtering 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: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 12:51:50 -0000 Thomas, Changchun, On 29/07/2015 14:56, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > Back on this old patch, it seems justified but nobody agreed. > > --- a/lib/librte_pmd_virtio/virtio_ethdev.c > +++ b/lib/librte_pmd_virtio/virtio_ethdev.c > @@ -1288,7 +1288,6 @@ virtio_dev_configure(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) > && !vtpci_with_feature(hw, VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_VLAN)) { > PMD_DRV_LOG(NOTICE, > "vlan filtering not available on this host"); > - return -ENOTSUP; > } > > 2015-03-06 08:24, Stephen Hemminger: >> "Ouyang, Changchun" wrote: >>>> From: Stephen Hemminger >>>> Vlan filtering is an option, and not a requirement. >>>> If host does not support filtering then it can be done in software. +1 with Stephen, remove return -ENOTSUP; applications must not fail, software stacks will handle it. We did experiment some issues when testpmd was failing while it was supposed to run. A notice would be good enough. >>> >>> The question is that guest only send command, no real action to do the vlan filter. >>> So if both host and guest have no real action for vlan filter, who will do it? >> >> The virtio driver has features. >> Guest can not send commands to host where feature bit not enabled. >> Application can call filter_set and check if filter worked or not. >> >> Our code already had to do MAC and VLAN validation of incoming packets >> therefore if hardware can't do vlan match, there is no problem. >> I would expect other applications would do the same thing. >> >> Failing during configuration is bad. DPDK API should never force >> application to play "guess the working configuration" with the device >> driver or do string match on "which device is this anyway" Agree, it is not a failure of a configuration, it is a failure of negotiation of virtio's capabilities. Let's use another example: we do not expect a guest kernel to panic() because it is not properly negotiated? So why should a DPDK application fail and return -ENOTSUP? Thank you, Vincent