From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] devargs: add blacklisting by linux interface name Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 23:40:48 +0100 Message-ID: <7145730.ihAL5VqqiH@xps13> References: <1443798007-20122-1-git-send-email-3chas3@gmail.com> <561CFDDB.90601@6wind.com> <1444830094.3494.59.camel@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: "Charles (Chas) Williams" <3chas3@gmail.com> Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com (mail-wm0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9E75378E for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 23:42:18 +0100 (CET) Received: by wmeg8 with SMTP id g8so122741714wme.0 for ; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 14:42:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1444830094.3494.59.camel@gmail.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2015-10-14 09:41, Charles Williams: > On Tue, 2015-10-13 at 14:49 +0200, Olivier MATZ wrote: > > For PCI devices that have several interfaces (I think it's the case for > > some Mellanox boards), maybe we should not store the interface name? > > I am not sure what you mean here. If a device has multiple ethernet > interfaces, then it should a have seperate PCI device address space for > each interface (I dont know of any DPDK drivers that don't make this > assumption as well). mlx4 and cxgbe?