From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45309F614 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 15:53:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Jan 2017 06:53:34 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,346,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="921347093" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.38]) ([10.237.220.38]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Jan 2017 06:53:28 -0800 To: Vincent JARDIN , "Zhang, Helin" , "Lu, Wenzhuo" , dev@dpdk.org References: <1480637533-37425-1-git-send-email-wenzhuo.lu@intel.com> <1484032580-60134-1-git-send-email-wenzhuo.lu@intel.com> <1598a0c7f80.27fc.bb328046f2889bc8f44aafa891a44dd2@6wind.com> Cc: "'JOSHI, KAUSTUBH'" , "'DANIELS, EDWARD'" , "'ZELEZNIAK, ALEX'" From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 14:53:28 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 00/25] Support VFD on i40e 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 14:53:35 -0000 On 1/11/2017 1:14 PM, Vincent JARDIN wrote: > Le 10/01/2017 à 22:32, Ferruh Yigit a écrit : >> What do you think to continue high level DPDK PF discussion in mail >> thread for other pathset? So that we can continue to work on this one. > > First, we need to assess or not if it makes sense to go toward Linux > kernel or DPDK based PF. If Linux kernel is used, then DPDK does not > need VFD related modifications. DPDK PF <--> DPDK VF is already supported. This patchset is not introducing it. This patchset adds more PF <-> VF communication to a specific driver, and this is done in PMD specific way, so update is limited to PMD. >>From my scope, this patchset looks good. And how assessment can be done, with which quorum, can it be done in a way without blocking the patchset? > > VFD demonstrates that there are some needs of features, but it pushes > the new path of a fork of PF drivers.