On 06/10/2026 19:31, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
On 6 Oct 2026, at 16:29, Eli Britstein wrote:
On 29/09/2026 11:34, David Marchand wrote:
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
Sending this as a RFC because it is still not polished (especially on
the structure layout side, in the last patch).
This series aims at splitting the netdev-dpdk.c file and the netdev_dpdk
structure that intermix all the various concerns for "normal"
(I call them ethernet) DPDK ports and vhost DPDK ports.
Until the last patch, there should be no performance impact,
but I did not go far enough to back that claim.
My hope is to have this series in a good shape to ease integration of
netdev-doca.c.
Comments welcome.
Hi David,
Thanks for this series.
I reviewed it. It achieves the eth/vhost separation, but keeps the eth part
static in netdev-dpdk.c.
This doesn't quite get us towards easy netdev-doca integration: doca needs the
whole eth part
exposed for reuse and some helpers factored out.
That exposure and factoring is already done in the netdev-doca patches, not by
this series.
I did rebase netdev-doca on top of your series as a check. I re-did the
exposing and helper
factoring and adapted netdev-doca on top.
Can you share the dev branch with this change? I’ll be going over the
RFC, and it would be useful to easily see where it overlaps with the
existing work, where it adds value, and where it doesn’t.
https://github.com/elibritstein/OVS/tree/101d2d623ab5
git clone https://github.com/elibritstein/OVS.git -b 101d2d623ab5
It works, but it means redoing a fair amount of what the netdev-doca patches
already do (and that Eelco already reviewed), just in a different place.
The netdev-doca patches were already acked by Eelco (with a few nits remaining),
so I think it makes more sense to get those reviewed and merged first, and have
the eth/vhost
I guess that if we do apply David’s work, it will be on main, which would
then break the already-reviewed series on dpdk-latest, and would warrant
another review of netdev-doca anyway.
However, let’s first look at the benefits of the RFC compared to your
changes and see where there is overlap.
separation come later as an independent cleanup. It's a reasonable cleanup on
its own.
Thanks, Eli
--
David Marchand
David Marchand (11):
netdev-dpdk: Hide some rte_flow error helper.
netdev-dpdk: Cleanup netdev ops.
netdev-dpdk: Separate ethernet and vhost netdev ops.
netdev-dpdk: Insulate mempool creation from netdev_dpdk.
netdev-dpdk: Separate ethernet and vhost specific fields.
netdev-dpdk: Move common fields and associated helpers.
netdev-dpdk: Move mempool code.
netdev-dpdk: Move QoS code.
netdev-dpdk: Move transmission code.
netdev-dpdk: Store vhost ports in a separate list.
netdev-dpdk: Split ethernet and vhost netdevs.
lib/automake.mk | 4 +-
lib/netdev-dpdk-common.c | 1789 +++++++++++++++++
lib/netdev-dpdk-common.h | 517 +++++
lib/netdev-dpdk.c | 4018 ++++++++++++--------------------------
lib/netdev-dpdk.h | 11 -
tests/system-dpdk.at | 1 +
6 files changed, 3563 insertions(+), 2777 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 lib/netdev-dpdk-common.c
create mode 100644 lib/netdev-dpdk-common.h
--
2.54.0
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
