From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ferruh Yigit Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] net/netvsc: not finding VF should not cause failure Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 10:49:06 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20181214012621.15213-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20181214012621.15213-4-stephen@networkplumber.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stephen Hemminger , Kevin Traynor To: Stephen Hemminger , dev@dpdk.org Return-path: Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CAC61B6F1 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:49:09 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20181214012621.15213-4-stephen@networkplumber.org> Content-Language: en-US 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 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@dpdk.org line > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger > --- > 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; >