From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from jaguar.aricent.com (jaguar.aricent.com [121.241.96.11]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1122F58D6 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 13:55:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from jaguar.aricent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss71 (Postfix) with ESMTP id A341536B5D; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 17:25:37 +0530 (IST) Received: from GUREXHT02.ASIAN.AD.ARICENT.COM (gurexht02.asian.ad.aricent.com [10.203.171.138]) by jaguar.aricent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93CE936B59; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 17:25:37 +0530 (IST) Received: from GUREXMB01.asian.ad.aricent.com ([10.203.171.134]) by GUREXHT02.ASIAN.AD.ARICENT.COM ([10.203.171.138]) with mapi; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 17:25:37 +0530 From: Prashant Upadhyaya To: jigsaw , Thomas Monjalon Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 17:25:34 +0530 Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] 82599 SR-IOV with passthrough Thread-Index: Ac7KcnmRwI9xlPfeRrimWPryIbm/JgAvRb+Q Message-ID: References: <201310161458.55712.thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-MML: No Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] 82599 SR-IOV with passthrough 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: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 11:55:08 -0000 Hi Qinglai, Why are you using the kernel driver at all. Use the DPDK driver to control the PF on the host. The guest would communic= ate with the PF on host using mailbox as usual. Then the changes will be limited to DPDK, isn't it ? Regards -Prashant -----Original Message----- From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of jigsaw Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 6:51 PM To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] 82599 SR-IOV with passthrough Hi Thomas, Thanks for reply. The kernel has older version of PF than the one released on sf.net. So I'm = checking the sf.net release. If the change is limited in DPDK then it is controllable. But now it affect= s Intel's PF driver, I don't even know how to push the feature to Intel. Th= e driver on sf.net is a read-only repository, isn't it? It would be painful= to maintain another branch of 10G PF driver. Could Intel give some advice or hints here? thx & rgds, -Qinglai On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 16/10/2013 14:18, jigsaw : >> Therefore, to add support for multiple queues per VF, we have to at >> least fix the PF driver, then add support in DPDK's VF driver. > > You're right, Linux PF driver have to be updated to properly manage > multiple queues per VF. Then the guest can be tested with DPDK or with > Linux driver (ixgbe_vf). > > Note that there are 2 versions of Linux driver for ixgbe: kernel.org > and sourceforge.net (supporting many kernel versions). > > -- > Thomas =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D Please refer to http://www.aricent.com/legal/email_disclaimer.html for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D