[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] app/testpmd: enable VF untag drop in testpmd

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 3/3/2017 1:59 AM, Qi Zhang wrote:
> Add command line to support untag drop to specific VF in
> testpmd.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>
> ---
>  app/test-pmd/cmdline.c | 104 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 104 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> index 43fc636..4ddc2c9 100644
> --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> @@ -311,6 +311,10 @@ static void cmd_help_long_parsed(void *parsed_result,
>  
>  			"set vf vlan antispoof (port_id) (vf_id) (on|off)\n"
>  			"    Set VLAN antispoof for a VF from the PF.\n\n"
> +#ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_I40E_PMD
> +			"set vf vlan untagdrop (port_id) (vf_id) (on|off)\n"
> +			"    Set VLAN untag drop for a VF from the PF.\n\n"
> +#endif

We should decide how to implement PMD specific APIs in testpmd, and be
consistent about it.

Currently there are two approaches:

1- Wrap PMD specific feature and API with and PMD #ifdef, as done here.

2- Enable feature by default, return -ENOTSUP for port_id that does not
support it. Ex: cmd_vf_rxvlan_filter.

I am for second option. And explicitly not disabling I40E driver does
not mean you should have those NICs in your runtime environment, so the
effect will be same as always enabling it.


And since number of PMD specific APIs are increasing, perhaps we should
find a better approach for testpmd to prevent them corrupting testpmd.

Also it may worth to discuss why number of PMD specific APIs are increasing.

>  
>  			"set vf vlan tag (port_id) (vf_id) (on|off)\n"
>  			"    Set VLAN tag for a VF from the PF.\n\n"
> @@ -10995,6 +10999,103 @@ cmdline_parse_inst_t cmd_set_vf_vlan_anti_spoof = {
>  	},
>  };
>  
<...>