On 1/22/2018 9:30 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> It is suggested to use PCI BDF to identify a port for port addition
> in OVS-DPDK. While mlx5 has its own naming style: name it by ib dev
> name. This breaks the typical OVS DPDK use case and brings more puzzle
> to the end users.
>
> To fix it, this patc
Tuesday, January 23, 2018 10:24 AM, Nélio Laranjeiro:
> Hi Yuanhan,
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 05:30:06PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > It is suggested to use PCI BDF to identify a port for port addition in
> > OVS-DPDK. While mlx5 has its own naming style: name it by ib dev name.
> > This breaks
Hi Yuanhan,
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 05:30:06PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> It is suggested to use PCI BDF to identify a port for port addition
> in OVS-DPDK. While mlx5 has its own naming style: name it by ib dev
> name. This breaks the typical OVS DPDK use case and brings more puzzle
> to the end
It is suggested to use PCI BDF to identify a port for port addition
in OVS-DPDK. While mlx5 has its own naming style: name it by ib dev
name. This breaks the typical OVS DPDK use case and brings more puzzle
to the end users.
To fix it, this patch changes it to use PCI BDF as the name, too.
Also, a
4 matches
Mail list logo