>
> From: David Marchand [mailto:david.marchand at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 4:22 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin
> Cc: Liang, Cunming; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 06/11] ixgbe: fix rx intr compatible issue
> with PF mbox
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at
> intel.com> wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of David Marchand
> > Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 4:03 PM
> > To: Liang, Cunming
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 06/11] ixgbe: fix rx intr compatible
> > issue with PF mbox
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Cunming Liang <cunming.liang at intel.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > When ixgbe runs as a PF, mbox interrupt is prerequisite to make VF start
> > > normally.
> > > And PF sometimes won't 'dev_start', so the mbox interrupt register during
> > > 'dev_init' is required.
> > >
> >
> > Can you describe the cases/situations where you would want a device to
> > handle interrupts while not started ?
>
> When PF and VF are both controlled by DPDK process(es).
> And user doesn't really want to do any RX/TX through PF - uses PF just to
> control/configure VF(s).
>
> Ok, but the user still needs to whitelist the PF (or ensure the PF is not
> blacklisted) in one of these processes.
Yes, at least dev_init() need to be called for that device.
> Then, the application would do a "partial" initialisation ?
Yep, sort of.
> If you don't want rx/tx, don't poll the port.
Well, the question is why to add an extra restriction here?
Probably user deliberately doesn't want to call dev_start() for PF device -
as he doesn't plan to use it for RX/TX.
Or might be dev_stop() was called just to do some re-configuration
(allow to TX scattered packets on the PF queues or so).
Or dev_start() for PF has not yet been called.
Why VF should stop working properly because of that?
Konstantin
> Anyway, this is your code :-)
>
>
> --
> David Marchand
