Hi everyone, > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 9:38 PM > To: Harish Patil > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Question on examples/multi_process app > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 08:03:42PM +0000, Harish Patil wrote: > > Hi, > > I have a question regarding symmetric_mp and mp_server applications under > > examples/multi_process. In those apps, rte_eth_promiscuous_enable() is > > called before rte_eth_dev_start(). Is this the correct way to initialize > > the port/device? As per the description in > > http://dpdk.org/doc/api/rte__ethdev_8h.html: > > > > "The functions exported by the application Ethernet API to setup a device > > designated by its port identifier must be invoked in the following order: > > > > * rte_eth_dev_configure() > > * rte_eth_tx_queue_setup() > > * rte_eth_rx_queue_setup() > > * rte_eth_dev_start() > > > > Then, the network application can invoke, in any order, the functions > > exported by the Ethernet API to get the MAC address of a given device, to > > get the speed and the status of a device physical link, to > > receive/transmit [burst of] packets, and so on.? > > > > So should I consider this as an application issue or whether the PMD is > > expected to handle it? If PMD is to handle it, then should the PMD be: > > > > 1) Rejecting the Promisc config? OR > > 2) Cache the config and apply when dev_start() is called at later point?
Yes as I remember 2) is done. dev_start() invokes rte_eth_dev_config_restore(), which restores promisc mode, mac addresses, etc. > > > > Thanks, > > Harish > > > Good question. I think most/all of the Intel adapters, - for which the app was > originally written, way back in the day when there were only 2 PMDs in DPDK :) > - will handle the promiscuous mode call either before or after the dev start. > Assuming that's the case, and if it makes life easier for other driver > writers, > we should indeed standardize on one supported way of doing things - the way > specified in the documentation being that one way, I would guess. > > So, e1000, ixgbe maintainers - do you see any issues with forcing the > promiscuous > mode set API to be called after the call to dev_start()? Not sure, why do we need to enforce that restriction? Is there any problem with current way? Konstantin > > /Bruce
