From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF543E72 for ; 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" To: Thomas Monjalon , "Jayakumar, Muthurajan" 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" 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: 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