From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12762A04A4; Tue, 26 May 2020 18:55:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B37B1D670; Tue, 26 May 2020 18:55:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 573161D668 for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 18:55:34 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1590512133; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/pcW7tUPHhxYYToYZCZ9FpTa5dwKGnrborC0xBUuRIM=; b=asWtxhvdfIpG6qYfMV4KkXw7BOHWO++xypjIykidUx3bDX51sOxARcaTZSVOPISn8d9HiX mtnCFkdfAkp2KKVTAficB054G4KH8+6V4SQs+2PjEzjE1PwE5jMTDy2NJb3UmfEnD07giy TIMWp1NOHzEy8pX7Qne1p+wmLXlLbpE= Received: from mail-vk1-f197.google.com (mail-vk1-f197.google.com [209.85.221.197]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-235-glduuB3tNiW-V5XE-fMdmg-1; Tue, 26 May 2020 12:55:31 -0400 X-MC-Unique: glduuB3tNiW-V5XE-fMdmg-1 Received: by mail-vk1-f197.google.com with SMTP id u190so8165362vke.0 for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 09:55:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/pcW7tUPHhxYYToYZCZ9FpTa5dwKGnrborC0xBUuRIM=; b=rIFU+gHhlhZd3wizSfIrRge+jkToKq9vk/1LJxen2Mgx1rsnenoySseo2DktkASP1o eZDBmj9Y/xTzy7qTFAeLFjSOZPqIL7KWwJ855pJt2fWXGJ5TjSJI8k8YNK5HytcRJHss YBxp1RBafehT/fmoi/bLxS31+KpXAXgWgTvjyGl/pBb7IoKhNaCUGwATlpgSdpvg+3oZ CFkHpggfdtjHdYxXQSaavxMv9kmgquu+vag3UcRTV4PQobJBC+MiMWbcj9/IQLwTtAPw 5lvfBrdpN12QA00qAqwL38f9xDYJVyyQtbR28oDl6V4ZvykLlNGcZmFYWinVjudHV7tI vrFA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533rmoIGhpo+OWSovYBVxTYEUmC4yBWz71bRdh6rG9phDVulp/KC /CoY6NTzSEqg/IQwREYhRWsgdaVnsP7TbTiiGqxJlM5nBBjObhOZzw4YKPHX+BNEMZSeTDSPIq7 GZw6GNREEwnKERC9HFiQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:2123:: with SMTP id f3mr1789303vsg.141.1590512131145; Tue, 26 May 2020 09:55:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyyUQI5y0FmdKKTOuZJkqHRB0vsaQWvsG4LcR673xibRJgexc1CSgXpHdxg2f4Wp9SMphDYpIl/MTT1dpWnMuc= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:2123:: with SMTP id f3mr1789287vsg.141.1590512130895; Tue, 26 May 2020 09:55:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200310160609.7434-1-kirankumark@marvell.com> <16170589.5WZRyvrzyv@xps> In-Reply-To: <16170589.5WZRyvrzyv@xps> From: David Marchand Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 18:55:20 +0200 Message-ID: To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , Kiran Kumar Kokkilagadda Cc: Ori Kam , Wenzhuo Lu , Jingjing Wu , Bernard Iremonger , John McNamara , Marko Kovacevic , Ferruh Yigit , Andrew Rybchenko , dev , Thomas Monjalon X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add DBDF action to RTE Flow X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hello Jerin, Kiran, On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:26 AM Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > We have the following use case. > > > > We have 2 PF's pf0, pf1 and corresponding VF's pf0_vf0 , pf1_vf0. And > > > > we have > > > > 3 applications running. > > > > 1st application on pf0 and pf1 > > > > 2nd application on pf0_vf0 > > > > 3rd application on pf1_vf0. > > > > We want to direct the traffic matching condition1 from application 1 > > > > (traffic from both pf0 & pf1) needs to send to application 2 > > > > (pf0_vf0) And matching condition2 from application 1 (traffic from > > > > both pf0 & pf1) needs to send to application 3 (pf1_vf0). > > > > To summarize, we need to send traffic from pf0 to pf1_vf0 and traffic > > > > from pf1 to pf0_vf0. In this case This DBDF action will be useful. > > > > > > > > > > It seems that what you are describing it the port action with representors, or any > > > other way you wish to implement it. > > > > Let's say we have a VF with kernel and we want to send the traffic to that VF, then we can't > > Use port action. This will be useful in those scenarios. > > Sorry I don't understand. > You mean the VF is managed by a kernel driver while the PF is managed by DPDK? > So what prevents having a VF representor? The discussion did not reach a conclusion. Looking at patchwork, I can see it set to "Not Applicable". Do you still expect some work on this subject? Thanks. -- David Marchand