On 2021-08-27 12:18, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru>
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 10:00 PM
To: Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khapa...@broadcom.com>; Somnath Kotur
<somnath.ko...@broadcom.com>; John Daley
<johnd...@cisco.com>; Hyong Youb Kim <hyon...@cisco.com>; Beilei Xing
<beilei.x...@intel.com>; Qiming Yang
<qiming.y...@intel.com>; Qi Zhang <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Haiyue Wang
<haiyue.w...@intel.com>; Matan Azrad
<ma...@nvidia.com>; Shahaf Shuler <shah...@nvidia.com>; Slava
Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com>; NBU-Contact-Thomas
Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Viacheslav Galaktionov
<viacheslav.galaktio...@oktetlabs.ru>; Xueming(Steven) Li
<xuemi...@nvidia.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2] ethdev: fix representor port ID search by name
From: Viacheslav Galaktionov <viacheslav.galaktio...@oktetlabs.ru>
Getting a list of representors from a representor does not make sense.
Instead, a parent device should be used.
To this end, extend the rte_eth_dev_data structure to include the port
ID of the parent device for representors.
Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Galaktionov
<viacheslav.galaktio...@oktetlabs.ru>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru>
---
[snip]
b/drivers/net/mlx5/windows/mlx5_os.c
index 7e1df1c751..0c5a02bfcb 100644
--- a/drivers/net/mlx5/windows/mlx5_os.c
+++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/windows/mlx5_os.c
@@ -543,6 +543,23 @@ mlx5_dev_spawn(struct rte_device *dpdk_dev,
if (priv->representor) {
eth_dev->data->dev_flags |= RTE_ETH_DEV_REPRESENTOR;
eth_dev->data->representor_id = priv->representor_id;
+ MLX5_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(port_id, priv->pci_dev) {
+ struct mlx5_priv *opriv =
+ rte_eth_devices[port_id].data->dev_private;
+ if (opriv &&
+ opriv->master &&
+ opriv->domain_id == priv->domain_id &&
+ opriv->sh == priv->sh) {
+ eth_dev->data->parent_port_id =
+ rte_eth_devices[port_id].data->port_id;
Could this value different than port_id?
Oh, yes, that's an oversight. Thank you!
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+ if (port_id >= RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS) {
+ DRV_LOG(ERR, "no master device for representor");
+ err = ENODEV;
+ goto error;
Here shouldn't be an error.
What do you mean? Is it normal not to have a master device for a
representor?
Parent port ID default to 0, it could be wrong if multiple PF probed,
let's default to current port ID.
What is the "current" port ID here? Do you mean the representor's port
ID?
If you are talking about the value of the port_id variable, then I
suppose it
could be set to RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS explicitly if a master device isn't
found.
[snip]
