From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57CA85A64 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 19:02:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Aug 2015 10:02:44 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,602,1432623600"; d="scan'208";a="761006006" Received: from kmsmsx151.gar.corp.intel.com ([172.21.73.86]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Aug 2015 10:02:43 -0700 Received: from shsmsx101.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.153) by KMSMSX151.gar.corp.intel.com (172.21.73.86) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 01:02:42 +0800 Received: from shsmsx104.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.45]) by SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.18]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 01:02:41 +0800 From: "Zhang, Helin" To: Thomas Monjalon Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] examples: remove l3fwd-vf example Thread-Index: AQHQvgrBTa10K1/bu0mVVBWFlESt4p3bC7mAgAvE8ACAAM5AwIASeRyAgACIGkA= Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 17:02:40 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1436860647-5862-1-git-send-email-jingjing.wu@intel.com> <2646739.fctqXc0xZm@xps13> <2596501.YiU0Cqygmx@xps13> In-Reply-To: <2596501.YiU0Cqygmx@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: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 17:02:45 -0000 I don't think so, as l3fwd cannot support all cases quite well at this mome= nt. Can we targeting to do that in R2.2? Regards, Helin > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 9:55 AM > To: Zhang, Helin > Cc: Liu, Yong; Cao, Waterman; dev@dpdk.org; Wu, Jingjing > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] examples: remove l3fwd-vf example >=20 > Any news? > Can we remove it from version 2.1? >=20 > 2015-07-22 14:51, Zhang, Helin: > > Marvin/Waterman > > > > Could you help to check if l3fwd is good enough for all cases (1g/10/40= g, PF and > VF, single queue/multiple queue)? > > We aim to remove l3fwd-vf to reduce an example application which is not= so > necessary. > > Thank you! > > > > Regards, > > Helin > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:30 AM > > > To: Zhang, Helin > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Wu, Jingjing > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] examples: remove l3fwd-vf example > > > > > > 2015-07-14 14:50, Zhang, Helin: > > > > From: Wu, Jingjing > > > > > Because VF multi-queues can be supported, l3fwd can run on vf. > > > > > Suggest to remove the l3fwd-vf example. > > > > Totally agree with this! > > > > But we need the confirmation from validation guys of that l3fwd > > > > works quite well on VF with all NICs (e.g. i350, 82599, x550, xl710= , and > fm10k). > > > > > > Helin, any new from validation? >=20