On 9/11/17, 1:14 AM, "[email protected] on behalf of Finn 
Christensen" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> 
wrote:

    -----Original Message-----
    From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Yuanhan Liu
    Sent: 11. september 2017 09:55
    To: Chandran, Sugesh <[email protected]>
    Cc: [email protected]
    Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v2 8/8] netdev-dpdk: set FDIR config
    
    On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 07:42:57AM +0000, Chandran, Sugesh wrote:
    > 
    > 
    > Regards
    > _Sugesh
    > 
    > 
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: [email protected] [mailto:ovs-dev- 
    > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Yuanhan Liu
    > > Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 10:23 AM
    > > To: [email protected]
    > > Subject: [ovs-dev] [PATCH v2 8/8] netdev-dpdk: set FDIR config
    > > 
    > > From: Finn Christensen <[email protected]>
    > > 
    > > The Intel i40e PMD driver requires the fdir mode set to 
    > > RTE_FDIR_MODE_PERFECT, otherwise, the flow creation would be failed.
    > [Sugesh] this means it doesn't honor the flow masks which passed onto 
rte_flow_*?
    
    IIRC, that's what I found after divig the code. It's an issue 
reported/fixed by Finn. I also don't have the nic for testing.
    
    [Finn] Yes, this was needed to make our test setup using an XL710 work, 
with the rte_flow implementation.
    It's a while ago so I don't exactly remember how we ended up with this 
solution. However, we are definitely not
    Intel XL710 experts, so there might be other ways to achieve the rte_flow 
functionality.
    This issue, and problem raised about the overall change in configuration 
impact on NICs using this setting (Napatech 
    does not use it), I think should be reviewed/verified by NIC vendors using 
it.


[Darrell] We need to confirm the masking in the flow (but from what I see, it 
is ignored as Sugesh mentioned),
                which would be a significant difference.
                I guess we need input from Intel flow director folks to be sure 
and check if this can be done otherwise.
                What about the 82599 as another example ?
                
                
       
               

    
        --yliu
    _______________________________________________
    dev mailing list
    [email protected]
    
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.openvswitch.org_mailman_listinfo_ovs-2Ddev&d=DwICAg&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=BVhFA09CGX7JQ5Ih-uZnsw&m=MnFLi9pqa8AAxTecf0rx1ZIKcaMXyRz3GI8IUJSNBgE&s=mzq2ViO4y-0Dg2ViC_jgcIvw4dmc39-_BjWqDKrpG2A&e=
 
    _______________________________________________
    dev mailing list
    [email protected]
    
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.openvswitch.org_mailman_listinfo_ovs-2Ddev&d=DwICAg&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=BVhFA09CGX7JQ5Ih-uZnsw&m=MnFLi9pqa8AAxTecf0rx1ZIKcaMXyRz3GI8IUJSNBgE&s=mzq2ViO4y-0Dg2ViC_jgcIvw4dmc39-_BjWqDKrpG2A&e=
 
    

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to