[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/6] DPDK changes for accommodating ENIC PMD
Sujith Sankar (ssujith)
ssujith at cisco.com
Mon Nov 24 17:27:46 CET 2014
David,
ENIC PMD needs info about BAR0 only, and vfio map routine puts it at index 0. So, it didn’t pose trouble.
Regards,
-Sujith
From: David Marchand <david.marchand at 6wind.com<mailto:david.marchand at 6wind.com>>
Date: Monday, 24 November 2014 9:45 pm
To: "Sujith Sankar (ssujith)" <ssujith at cisco.com<mailto:ssujith at cisco.com>>
Cc: "dev at dpdk.org<mailto:dev at dpdk.org>" <dev at dpdk.org<mailto:dev at dpdk.org>>, "Prasad Rao (prrao)" <prrao at cisco.com<mailto:prrao at cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/6] DPDK changes for accommodating ENIC PMD
Mmm, I am not that familiar with vfio code, but I would say that there is something buggy in pci_vfio_map_resource() when compared to pci_uio_map_resource().
Is not there a problem with finding the right index of dev->mem_resource[] array ?
--
David Marchand
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Sujith Sankar (ssujith) <ssujith at cisco.com<mailto:ssujith at cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi David,
During the testing, I saw that the length field was 0. ENIC PMD validates the length of the BAR against a max value.
In order to get the length in the resource structure, I added this statement.
Thanks,
-Sujith
From: David Marchand <david.marchand at 6wind.com<mailto:david.marchand at 6wind.com>>
Date: Monday, 24 November 2014 4:33 pm
To: "Sujith Sankar (ssujith)" <ssujith at cisco.com<mailto:ssujith at cisco.com>>
Cc: "dev at dpdk.org<mailto:dev at dpdk.org>" <dev at dpdk.org<mailto:dev at dpdk.org>>, "Prasad Rao (prrao)" <prrao at cisco.com<mailto:prrao at cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/6] DPDK changes for accommodating ENIC PMD
Hello Sujith,
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Sujith Sankar <ssujith at cisco.com<mailto:ssujith at cisco.com>> wrote:
diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci_vfio.c b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci_vfio.c
index c776ddc..6bf8f2e 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci_vfio.c
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci_vfio.c
@@ -736,6 +736,7 @@ pci_vfio_map_resource(struct rte_pci_device *dev)
maps[i].offset = reg.offset;
maps[i].size = reg.size;
dev->mem_resource[i].addr = bar_addr;
+ dev->mem_resource[i].len = reg.size;
}
/* if secondary process, do not set up interrupts */
Not sure I understand why you need to overwrite the length value.
This is supposed to be initialised before by "generic" code.
This looks like a hack or a workaround.
Can you elaborate on this change ?
Thanks.
--
David Marchand
More information about the dev
mailing list