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: sta...@dpdk.org line > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <sthem...@microsoft.com> > --- > 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; >
