Thanks again. So there is a possibility that vf will fail with DPDK due to not fully supported pf. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Cheers, Pepe On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Jose Gavine Cueto <pepedocs at gmail.com>wrote: > Sorry I accidentally excluded the list. I've pasted the replies: > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I see thanks. > > I'm actually running my DPDK application on a guest OS but I'm always > getting an invalid instruction error. I was thinking that this was due to > ixgbevf driver in guest that commands the host driver which is not-fully > supported by DPDK, and consequently ran an invalid instruction. This > brings me back to the questions: > > Are SR-IOV virtual function drivers supported by DPDK PMD (I guess yes) ? > If yes, does the physical function (host) driver affects the DPDK > application in any way especially if it isn't fully supported yet by DPDK? > > I've tried looking at incompatibility issues with respect to compiler and > processor archs. but it seems OK to me. > > Thanks, > Pepe > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > SR-IOV is supported. There are dependencies with PF driver which handle NIC > configuration. VF/PF communication is done via mailbox. > > Please use the list. > > > Thomas > > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Thomas Monjalon < > thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote: > >> 23/12/2013 10:18, Jose Gavine Cueto : >> > I can't find a MACRO for this nic in rte_pci_dev_ids.h, does this mean >> this >> > isn't supported as of this moment ? >> >> Yes >> But probably that >> hw->mac.type = ixgbe_mac_X540 >> apply also to x540-at2. >> >> Please to try to add it and send the patch if it works. >> -- >> Thomas >> > > > > -- > To stop learning is like to stop loving. > -- To stop learning is like to stop loving.
