From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Remy Horton Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ethdev: pre-emptively document rte_eth_dev_reset error code Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 07:18:26 +0100 Message-ID: <8de2f02a-5434-3fb8-8fed-7bb013f6c49c@intel.com> References: <20171019134827.22740-1-luca.boccassi@gmail.com> <20171019134827.22740-2-luca.boccassi@gmail.com> <1508429659.31273.2.camel@debian.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: wenzhuo.lu@intel.com, wei.dai@intel.com To: Luca Boccassi , dev@dpdk.org Return-path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EBDD1B738 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:18:29 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <1508429659.31273.2.camel@debian.org> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 19/10/2017 17:14, Luca Boccassi wrote: [..] > We've adapted and used these patches with the early rte_eth_dev_reset > for a year in production now, and we had a customer who requested it > since they were running into the problem it solves (PF flaps). > > I have adapted them on the latest 17.11 tree and tested with X540 > 10gbit cards, and it seems to work as before. Should I send an RFC and > CC all of you? Since it sounds stable, probably best to post the updated/rebased patch. Should get merged as long as nothing breaks. > Incidentally, are there specific reasons why the VF functionality was > dropped since the first patches were sent? I'm personally not sure, but the others should know.