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 8FF18A04A4; Tue, 26 May 2020 18:57:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EF661D670; Tue, 26 May 2020 18:57:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-il1-f196.google.com (mail-il1-f196.google.com [209.85.166.196]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9291D66F for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 18:57:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-il1-f196.google.com with SMTP id w18so21110555ilm.13 for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 09:57:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wT2stQmd/9k3bdF00H6N2ZCDtInDCaI9k6g9CtmI77s=; b=a7rlaE77uX4pjVlDB5783XUYerDvP0v3sQ1XFwxPU/BysWr/FztAB+IqppKo1K+2Ru Ik3aKKazP/LvcKQwSj6V+p0teBhaFpU720EByFQvEblaHK2JM2kan+M8wnXJ47HmRLe+ FE4hJoZ2cNM8UfsCJQSzOOky4RyjllJqhTEshSK+KmP03YwsLc/EbjljAztsQXVJeiO4 pdtJeqxPVdeQib06VEPTWaGnqsGrFlLDqwhjTGITRtwnt+Pg3Axch9AHl0NGfv+HbMCR +YWj7NmhD8V79vcKdZQtg0NFkFEwunn3e5ts7G3mWYznUijo6trbalg32xbn4FEJg/P4 WTzA== 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=wT2stQmd/9k3bdF00H6N2ZCDtInDCaI9k6g9CtmI77s=; b=deiQcUlcZZYc0Zf17rDOz/1I/NGqzAmw7AiPwWibg6ipUGZbIfZrjgEtEgym26MEjt OyNrRhOnFm8JFet8mJJ4H/x16Ntgw0GVQ3ZMqCgez4+pqblOR/kvP2osxJcRlI+8Zm8+ SfnXzr7ba6zOs5Fe/5y2uLLxuwNvr/4lZOxhhLjBSI93c06wLOtBLBJ9lSvug38u7SID xUrbWn06I8r4J+kSMwQrEJkyvwxv6mJ+GVFKMVexu4n5nEA60vudrYC3yb+3joqOUpz0 SsUlmKBsKoPkRbgYZZmHk+/DEHel5GspMHlKIwQADYGnCCQvWpF9wp9oD0jZoLamzRc1 PWQA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532BSyH0PMQ7BbXJ6GchUPyA6z4eTUWlUs1CaUPOXk8oPeY74UK0 9SQMRcJGz8ZvpR3pOAvQuL0sBfVQVAo7svMh1gc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyg09L/NXlVWCSbRJkvYUn/b+XI/Mb9CdX2rw72M/425d+BvmhVvBmRLUs5JPZVvHGAD9Tc+FjxvDJqaOOfUts= X-Received: by 2002:a92:d188:: with SMTP id z8mr1937746ilz.60.1590512276634; Tue, 26 May 2020 09:57:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200310160609.7434-1-kirankumark@marvell.com> <16170589.5WZRyvrzyv@xps> In-Reply-To: From: Jerin Jacob Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 22:27:40 +0530 Message-ID: To: David Marchand Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , Kiran Kumar Kokkilagadda , Ori Kam , Wenzhuo Lu , Jingjing Wu , Bernard Iremonger , John McNamara , Marko Kovacevic , Ferruh Yigit , Andrew Rybchenko , dev , Thomas Monjalon 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" On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:25 PM David Marchand wrote: > > Hello Jerin, Kiran, Hello David, > > 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? No. We dont need API change, we can manage with VF representor. > > > Thanks. > > -- > David Marchand >