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> 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> > Date: Monday, 24 November 2014 4:33 pm > To: "Sujith Sankar (ssujith)" <ssujith at cisco.com> > Cc: "dev at dpdk.org" <dev at dpdk.org>, "Prasad Rao (prrao)" <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> 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 > >
