The Linux Foundation is moving from Freenode to Libera Chat. The FD.io
TSC approved the move and registered the #fdio and #fdio-meeting
channels. If your project requires an additional channel, please open a
request at support.linuxfoundation.org.
Please be sure to register your nick. Libera can b
Yes Dave, we are initiating a loopback delete from our application. But I don't
find anything suspicious in this code path, my guess is may be the hash was
already corrupted.
Regarding my question of thread_barrier lock, I was refering to the current
patch in unix_cli_file_add() where we are mod
Venumadhav Josyula writes:
Hi Christian,
As mentioned in my previous email, we want to give Intel based ( 10G
) for the our packet processing so we need dpdk. With dpdk being
there i was trying to explore if we can run in non-previlege mode ...
If you are trying to take over PCI HW directly
Sorry to interject with my questions.
1. Is Linux-cp alternative to tapv2 interfaces?
2. If ping plug-in is disabled, what’s the alternative to test ping?
Thanks and sorry again for abrupt and novice questions.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 5:59 PM Mike Beattie wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 09:14
This is a different code path which might need the same sort of fix.
Looks likely that you sent a VL_API_DELETE_LOOPBACK message. AFAICT that
message is not marked thread-safe, so it will be processed on thread 0 with the
thread barrier held.
D.
From: vpp-dev@lists.fd.io On Behalf
Hi Christian,
As mentioned in my previous email, we want to give Intel based ( 10G ) for
the our packet processing so we need dpdk. With dpdk being there i was
trying to explore if we can run in non-previlege mode ...
Thanks,
Regards,
Venu
On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 at 13:49, Christian Hopps wrote:
>
Hi Dave,
This hash node key corruption I observed while debugging a VPP crash due to
node_by_name hash access which seems to be corrupted.
So I thought the unix-cli-local node might be the root cause, but after the
patch also we saw the crash again. The bt looks like below.
* Frame 00: /li
Venumadhav Josyula writes:
Hi Damien,
I’m asking because in vpp we have also native
drivers for some NICs and paravirtualized >devices, and those
drivers are working in the >non-priv mode.
You mean to say native NICs para virtualized drivers ??? If yes can
share details.
What HW are y
Hi Damien,
>I’m asking because in vpp we have also native
> drivers for some NICs and paravirtualized >devices, and those drivers are
working in the >non-priv mode.
You mean to say native NICs para virtualized drivers ??? If yes can share
details.
So are you also implying that it might not be po
I’m asking because in vpp we have also native drivers for some NICs and
paravirtualized devices, and those drivers are working in the non-priv mode.
—
Damjan
On 18.06.2021., at 09:12, Venumadhav Josyula wrote:
>
>
> Hi Damjan,
>
> We need dpdk, the reason being that packets from the NICs
Hi Damjan,
We need dpdk, the reason being that packets from the NICs ( pollmode ) need
to come inside our packet processing sw ( GTPU). So we wanted to use dpdk
for the same. Now we wanted to know the pod in which vpp is running in
non-previleged mode.
Now we have questions
i) is it possible ?
ii
11 matches
Mail list logo
