[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: ensure consistent port id assignment

Sergio, could you please review this patch? Thanks, Amin > -Original Message- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 8:12 AM > To: Tootoonchian, Amin > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Kerlin, MarcinX > Subject: Re: [dpdk-d

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: ensure consistent port id assignment

Inline: > > This is the intended behavior with this patch. Ports are to be created > > only by the primary process. This is required for correct operation > > IMO, because if we allow secondary processes to create ports > > dynamically (and locally use conflicting port ids) without any > > synchro

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: ensure consistent port id assignment

> -Original Message- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 8:12 AM > To: Tootoonchian, Amin > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Kerlin, MarcinX > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: ensure consistent port id assignment >

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: ensure consistent port id assignment

Hi Marcin, Comments inline: > -Original Message- > From: Kerlin, MarcinX > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 1:51 AM > To: Tootoonchian, Amin > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com > Subject: RE: [PATCH] ethdev: ensure consistent port id assig

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: ensure consistent port id assignment

The rte_eth_dev_allocate() code has an implicit assumption that the port id assignment in the secondary process is consistent with that of the primary. The current code breaks if the enumeration of ethdevs in primary and secondary processes are not identical (e.g., when the black/whitelist and vdev