[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 14/15] ethdev: Support VFs on the different PCI domains

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 10/10/2016 2:01 PM, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> 
> 
> W dniu 10.10.2016 o 12:19, Ferruh Yigit pisze:
>> Hi Kamil,
>>
>> On 9/30/2016 1:05 PM, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>> It's possible to have the same numbers for bus, device id and function,
>>> therefore we need to differentiate on domain.
>>>
>>> This enables DPDK with multiple VFs on ThunderX 2-socket hardware.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Maciej Czekaj <maciej.czekaj at caviumnetworks.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kamil Rytarowski <kamil.rytarowski at caviumnetworks.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Zyta Szpak <zyta.szpak at semihalf.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Slawomir Rosek <slawomir.rosek at semihalf.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Radoslaw Biernacki <rad at semihalf.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com>
>>> ---
>>>   lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 2 +-
>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
>>> index 382c959..01d5fb0 100644
>>> --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
>>> @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ rte_eth_dev_create_unique_device_name(char *name, size_t size,
>>>   {
>>>   	int ret;
>>>   
>>> -	ret = snprintf(name, size, "%d:%d.%d",
>>> +	ret = snprintf(name, size, "%d:%d:%d.%d", pci_dev->addr.domain,
>>>   			pci_dev->addr.bus, pci_dev->addr.devid,
>>>   			pci_dev->addr.function);
>>>   	if (ret < 0)
>>>
>> Is it possible to separate this patch from patchset, this is a ethdev
>> patch and it seems not directly related to the rest of the patchset?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> ferruh
> 
> This patch is directly related with secondary queue set support on 
> ThunderX, but it can be skipped in this chain of patches and applied as 
> a standalone diff.
> 
> Is disabling this one on patch work sufficient? Of course unless there 
> are no more comments to produce v3 of the original patch chain "Add 
> support for secondary queue set in nicvf thunderx driver".

I think it is sufficient, at least I don't have any more comment for
rest of the patchset and it looks good to me.

> 
> Should I resubmit it as a new standalone patch?

Can you please resubmit just this one patch, so it can be properly reviewed.

Thanks,
ferruh