[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/6] net/virtio: fix wrong Rx/Tx method for secondary process
Xu, Qian Q
qian.q.xu at intel.com
Mon Jan 9 09:02:14 CET 2017
Could you help double confirm below error and the patchset ? Thanks.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yuanhan Liu [mailto:yuanhan.liu at linux.intel.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 1:19 PM
> To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; stable at dpdk.org; Xu, Qian Q <qian.q.xu at intel.com>; Liu,
> Yong <yong.liu at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/6] net/virtio: fix wrong Rx/Tx method for
> secondary process
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 03:15:00PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 18:16:16 +0800
> > Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > If the primary enables the vector Rx/Tx path, the current code would
> > > let the secondary always choose the non vector Rx/Tx path. This
> > > results to a Rx/Tx method mismatch between primary and secondary
> > > process. Werid errors then may happen, something like:
> > >
> > > PMD: virtio_xmit_pkts() tx: virtqueue_enqueue error: -14
> > >
> > > Fix it by choosing the correct Rx/Tx callbacks for the secondary process.
> > > That is, use vector path if it's given.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 8d8393fb1861 ("virtio: pick simple Rx/Tx")
> > >
> > > Cc: stable at dpdk.org
> > > Signed-off-by: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu at linux.intel.com>
> > This is failing on intel compile tests.
> > http://dpdk.org/patch/18975
> Thanks, but it looks like a false alarm to me, for reasons below.
> > Failed Build #2:
> > OS: RHEL7.2_64
> > Target: x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc
> > MKRES test_resource_c.res.o /home/patchWorkOrg/compilation/x86_64-
> native-linuxapp-gcc/lib/librte_ethdev.a(rte_ethdev.o): In function
> > rte_ethdev.c:(.text+0x9c4): undefined reference to
> > collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> - eth_dev_attach_secondary is not defined in this patch, it's defined
> (and used) in the first patch.
> - eth_dev_attach_secondary is actually defined; The report even shows
> it fails to build with gcc: the gcc build passes on my dev box.
> Honestly, I seldom trusted the build reports from STV.
More information about the dev