On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 02:39:25PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 03:44:28 -0700
> Xiao Wang <xiao.w.w...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > According to spec, we should write virtqueue index into the notify
> > address, rather than 1. Besides, some HW backend may rely on the data
> > written to identify which queue need to serve.
> >
> > Fixes: 6ba1f63b5ab0 ("virtio: support specification 1.0")
> > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xiao Wang <xiao.w.w...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/virtio/virtio_pci.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_pci.c
> > b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_pci.c
> > index ce9a9d3..b767c03 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_pci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_pci.c
> > @@ -504,7 +504,7 @@
> > static void
> > modern_notify_queue(struct virtio_hw *hw __rte_unused, struct virtqueue
> > *vq)
> > {
> > - rte_write16(1, vq->notify_addr);
> > + rte_write16(vq->vq_queue_index, vq->notify_addr);
> > }
>
>
> Yes, this looks correct. It is what Linux and FreeBSD drivers do.
>
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
Applied to dpdk-next-virtio.
Thanks.
--yliu
