Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/3] net/netvsc: not finding VF should not cause failure

2018-12-17 Thread Ferruh Yigit
n Hemminger ; Kevin Traynor >> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/3] net/netvsc: not finding VF should not >> cause failure >> >> On 12/14/2018 1:26 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >>> It is possible that the VF device exists but DPDK doesn't know >>

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/3] net/netvsc: not finding VF should not cause failure

2018-12-17 Thread Ferruh Yigit
onday, December 17, 2018 2:49 AM > To: Stephen Hemminger ; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: Stephen Hemminger ; Kevin Traynor > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/3] net/netvsc: not finding VF should not > cause failure > > On 12/14/2018 1:26 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> It is p

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/3] net/netvsc: not finding VF should not cause failure

2018-12-17 Thread Ferruh Yigit
On 12/14/2018 1:26 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > It is possible that the VF device exists but DPDK doesn't know > about it. This could happen if device was blacklisted or more > likely the necessary device (Mellanox) was not part of the DPDK > configuration. > > In either case, the right thing to

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/3] net/netvsc: not finding VF should not cause failure

2018-12-13 Thread Stephen Hemminger
It is possible that the VF device exists but DPDK doesn't know about it. This could happen if device was blacklisted or more likely the necessary device (Mellanox) was not part of the DPDK configuration. In either case, the right thing to do is just keep working but only with the slower para-virtu