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

[Zhang, Qi Z]

Hi Thomas:
	

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 12:04 AM
> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>; techboard at dpdk.org
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu at intel.com>; Zhang, Helin
> <helin.zhang at intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
> 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

Thanks for your capture
Actually I already got feedback from my team member and noticed
this is not right way, we should not do more to add divergence between PF.
So please regards this as my inattentive action, and please ignore this patch.
> 
> I wonder whether we should allow such divergence between PF
> implementations. 
No, we should not
>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.
> 
> 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.

Thanks
Qi