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

[Zhang, Qi Z]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 9:32 PM
> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing
> <jingjing.wu at intel.com>; Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] app/testpmd: enable VF untag drop in
> testpmd
> 
> On 3/9/2017 2:59 AM, Zhang, Qi Z wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 7:14 PM
> >> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing
> >> <jingjing.wu at intel.com>; Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang at intel.com>
> >> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] app/testpmd: enable VF untag drop
> >> in testpmd
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> > Yes, I notice this problem, during implementation, I saw both patterns
> > exist, so I have to choose one of them We'd better align this.
> > Both option ok for me, but a little bit prefer option 1 , since it's not
> necessary to explore a command if no backend device, that make the hint
> more clean.
> 
> I agree it's not necessary to explore a command if no backend device, but
> first option does not guaranties it. What it checks is compile time option, not
> runtime device detection.
> I40E driver is enabled by default, and unless user explicitly disables it,
> testpmd command will be there independent from device is there or not.
So this still benefit custom build, right?
Anyway, as I said, both are ok for me, I followed option 2 since most APIs follow this.
Please check v2.
> 
> >>
> >> And since number of PMD specific APIs are increasing, perhaps we
> >> should find a better approach for testpmd to prevent them corrupting
> testpmd.
> > Will think about this, also like to know if you or anyone have any good
> suggestion.
> >>
> >> 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 = {
> >>>  	},
> >>>  };
> >>>
> >> <...>