[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200803134550.7ec625ae@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 13:45:50 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: "Wang, Haiyue" <haiyue.wang@...el.com>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
"Venkataramanan, Anirudh" <anirudh.venkataramanan@...el.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"nhorman@...hat.com" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>,
"Bowers, AndrewX" <andrewx.bowers@...el.com>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Nguyen, Anthony L" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
"Lu, Nannan" <nannan.lu@...el.com>,
"Liang, Cunming" <cunming.liang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 1/5] ice: add the virtchnl handler for AdminQ command
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 10:39:52 +0000 Wang, Haiyue wrote:
> > In this case, I'm guessing, Intel can reuse RTE flow -> AQ code written
> > to run on PFs on the special VF.
> >
> > This community has selected switchdev + flower for programming flows.
> > I believe implementing flower offloads would solve your use case, and
> > at the same time be most beneficial to the netdev community.
>
> Jakub,
>
> Thanks, I deep into the switchdev, it is kernel software bridge for hardware
> offload, and each port is registered with register_netdev. So this solution
> is not suitable for current case: VF can be assigned to VMs.
You may be missing the concept of a representor.
Sridhar from Intel was investigating this, I believe, at some point.
Perhaps sync with him?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists