[dpdk-dev] 82599 SR-IOV with passthrough

[Prashant Upadhyaya]

Hi Qinglai,

Why are you using the kernel driver at all.
Use the DPDK driver to control the PF on the host. The guest would communicate with the PF on host using mailbox as usual.
Then the changes will be limited to DPDK, isn't it ?

Regards
-Prashant

-----Original Message-----
From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of jigsaw
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 6:51 PM
To: Thomas Monjalon
Cc: dev at dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] 82599 SR-IOV with passthrough

Hi Thomas,

Thanks for reply.

The kernel has older version of PF than the one released on sf.net. So I'm checking the sf.net release.
If the change is limited in DPDK then it is controllable. But now it affects Intel's PF driver, I don't even know how to push the feature to Intel. The driver on sf.net is a read-only repository, isn't it? It would be painful to maintain another branch of 10G PF driver.
Could Intel give some advice or hints here?

thx &
rgds,
-Qinglai

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote:
> 16/10/2013 14:18, jigsaw :
>> Therefore, to add support for multiple queues per VF, we have to at
>> least fix the PF driver, then add support in DPDK's VF driver.
>
> You're right, Linux PF driver have to be updated to properly manage
> multiple queues per VF. Then the guest can be tested with DPDK or with
> Linux driver (ixgbe_vf).
>
> Note that there are 2 versions of Linux driver for ixgbe: kernel.org
> and sourceforge.net (supporting many kernel versions).
>
> --
> Thomas




===============================================================================
Please refer to http://www.aricent.com/legal/email_disclaimer.html
for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication.
===============================================================================