W dniu 10.10.2016 o 15:27, Ferruh Yigit pisze:
> On 10/10/2016 2:01 PM, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>
>> W dniu 10.10.2016 o 12:19, Ferruh Yigit pisze:
>>> Hi Kamil,
>>>
>>> On 9/30/2016 1:05 PM, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>>> It's possible to have the same numbers for bus, device id and function,
>>>> therefore we need to differentiate on domain.
>>>>
>>>> This enables DPDK with multiple VFs on ThunderX 2-socket hardware.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Maciej Czekaj <maciej.czekaj at caviumnetworks.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kamil Rytarowski <kamil.rytarowski at caviumnetworks.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zyta Szpak <zyta.szpak at semihalf.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Slawomir Rosek <slawomir.rosek at semihalf.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Radoslaw Biernacki <rad at semihalf.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
>>>> index 382c959..01d5fb0 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
>>>> @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ rte_eth_dev_create_unique_device_name(char *name,
>>>> size_t size,
>>>> {
>>>> int ret;
>>>>
>>>> - ret = snprintf(name, size, "%d:%d.%d",
>>>> + ret = snprintf(name, size, "%d:%d:%d.%d", pci_dev->addr.domain,
>>>> pci_dev->addr.bus, pci_dev->addr.devid,
>>>> pci_dev->addr.function);
>>>> if (ret < 0)
>>>>
>>> Is it possible to separate this patch from patchset, this is a ethdev
>>> patch and it seems not directly related to the rest of the patchset?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> ferruh
>> This patch is directly related with secondary queue set support on
>> ThunderX, but it can be skipped in this chain of patches and applied as
>> a standalone diff.
>>
>> Is disabling this one on patch work sufficient? Of course unless there
>> are no more comments to produce v3 of the original patch chain "Add
>> support for secondary queue set in nicvf thunderx driver".
> I think it is sufficient, at least I don't have any more comment for
> rest of the patchset and it looks good to me.
>
>> Should I resubmit it as a new standalone patch?
> Can you please resubmit just this one patch, so it can be properly reviewed.
>
> Thanks,
> ferruh
>
Hi,
I've performed the needed actions.
This patch should be disabled in the patch-chain and has been resent as
a new one.
