[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/i40e: enable statistic reset for VF

Zhang, Helin helin.zhang at intel.com
Fri Mar 17 04:28:31 CET 2017

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 12:04 AM
> To: Zhang, Qi Z; techboard at dpdk.org
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Wu, Jingjing; Zhang, Helin; Yigit, Ferruh
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/i40e: enable statistic reset for VF
> 2017-02-23 13:27, Qi Zhang:
> >  static void
> > +i40evf_dev_stats_reset(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) {
> > +	struct i40e_vf *vf = I40EVF_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_VF(dev->data-
> >dev_private);
> > +	/* only DPDK PF support this */
> > +	if (vf->version_major == I40E_DPDK_VERSION_MAJOR) {
> > +		if (i40evf_reset_statistics(dev))
> > +			PMD_DRV_LOG(ERR, "Reset statistics failed");
> > +	}
> > +}
> One more SR-IOV feature not supported with a Linux PF.
> The basic stats feature must be marked as partially supported in
> 	doc/guides/nics/features/i40e_vf.ini
> See also this email:
> 	http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-March/060063.html
> I wonder whether we should allow such divergence between PF
> implementations. Intel committed to avoid such fragmentation and keep the
> SR-IOV messaging standard but it does not happen.
> It is said that we must allow fast innovation in DPDK space.
> I agree but we should also target a good usability of the VF drivers, allowing to
> replace the PF implementations as needed.

Hi Thomas

I think I need to clarify a little bit here.
I think we will try our best, but I don't think we can commit. As they are on
totally different community, and of cause code repositories.

> Here is my suggestion: let's accept a VF feature only if the PF support is
> submitted to both dpdk.org and kernel.org mailing lists.
> I ask to add this topic to the next techboard meeting.

Sorry, technically I disagree with this suggestion, as I don't understand why!
I was told DPDK is not Linux, and Linux is not DPDK. Why we want to add this
dependency on Linux PF host driver? And why just on PF/VF driver feature only?
I think if we can have any good innovative idea on DPDK first, why not just
have it on DPDK? Then Linux or even other OS/community/Company can learn
from DPDK and develop their own.


More information about the dev mailing list