[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/3] net/netvsc: not finding VF should not cause failure

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 12/14/2018 1:26 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> It is possible that the VF device exists but DPDK doesn't know
> about it. This could happen if device was blacklisted or more
> likely the necessary device (Mellanox) was not part of the DPDK
> configuration.
> 
> In either case, the right thing to do is just keep working
> but only with the slower para-virtual device.

Same question for this one, is this something that should be backported?
Is it intentionally left out from backporting?

Just a reminder, for backport, a patch needs a few markers,
- fix patch with fixes line
- Cc: stable at dpdk.org line

> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin at microsoft.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/netvsc/hn_ethdev.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/netvsc/hn_ethdev.c b/drivers/net/netvsc/hn_ethdev.c
> index de872212d3f3..1f7a7e66a51b 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/netvsc/hn_ethdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/netvsc/hn_ethdev.c
> @@ -788,7 +788,7 @@ eth_hn_dev_init(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev)
>  
>  		err = hn_vf_add(eth_dev, hv);
>  		if (err)
> -			goto failed;
> +			hv->vf_present = 0;
>  	}
>  
>  	return 0;
>