From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] librte_pmd_packet: add PMD for AF_PACKET-based virtual devices Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 12:22:13 +0100 Message-ID: <1536588.MUxmeFqKeH@xps13> References: <1405024369-30058-1-git-send-email-linville@tuxdriver.com> <1958929.j3reG6p4bY@xps13> <20141117111919.GA17886@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org, John Linville To: Neil Horman Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20141117111919.GA17886-B26myB8xz7F8NnZeBjwnZQMhkBWG/bsMQH7oEaQurus@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" 2014-11-17 06:19, Neil Horman: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:57:25PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2014-11-13 06:14, Neil Horman: > > > Do you have an example set of tests that the other pmd's have followed for this? > > > > You can check this: > > http://dpdk.org/browse/tools/dts/tree/test_plans/pmd_test_plan.rst > > http://dpdk.org/browse/tools/dts/tree/test_plans/pmd_bonded_test_plan.rst > > > Looking at this, the pmd_test_plan above seems perfectly applicable to Johns > pmd. did you feel as though additional tests were needed for a virutal pmd > (asside from a note describing the additional --vdev parameter required for > virtual device setup? It's maybe sufficient. I didn't dig enough. We'll see wether some people need more for validation. > I'll have a renamed device pmd patch up later today. Excellent. Thanks -- Thomas