From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF543E72
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 02:54:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27])
 by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Jul 2015 17:54:29 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,476,1432623600"; d="scan'208";a="606334386"
Received: from kmsmsx153.gar.corp.intel.com ([172.21.73.88])
 by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Jul 2015 17:54:25 -0700
Received: from shsmsx101.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.153) by
 KMSMSX153.gar.corp.intel.com (172.21.73.88) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
 id 14.3.224.2; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 08:54:19 +0800
Received: from shsmsx104.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.129]) by
 SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.246]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002;
 Wed, 15 Jul 2015 08:54:18 +0800
From: "Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>, "Jayakumar, Muthurajan"
 <muthurajan.jayakumar@intel.com>
Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] examples: remove l3fwd-vf example
Thread-Index: AQHQvgrBlw8TFggSqEufYL1bptTX0p3aGcAAgAACH4CAAZjMEA==
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:54:17 +0000
Message-ID: <9BB6961774997848B5B42BEC655768F8C68160@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
References: <1436860647-5862-1-git-send-email-jingjing.wu@intel.com>
 <5D695A7F6F10504DBD9B9187395A21797D25A295@ORSMSX112.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <1689423.VMbrg9M0mP@xps13>
In-Reply-To: <1689423.VMbrg9M0mP@xps13>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <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 <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:54:36 -0000



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 4:28 PM
> To: Jayakumar, Muthurajan
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Wu, Jingjing
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] examples: remove l3fwd-vf example
>=20
> 2015-07-14 08:20, Jayakumar, Muthurajan:
> > Can you please share as what is the benefit of removing l3fwd-vf exampl=
e?
> > Customers have been using this very much.
> > Please let me know what is the disadvantage of keeping l3fwd-vf.
>=20
> What is the benefit of keeping an example which can be replaced?
>=20
> "Because VF multi-queues can be supported, l3fwd can run on vf."
>=20
> Removing some code is a nice goal from a maintenance point of view.

Yes, the l3fwd-vf example is almost the same as l3fwd, it is just used when=
 VF can only support one queue.
Because VF multi-queues is supported, l3fwd running on vf is a better choic=
e.=20