From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DB311B1A7; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 14:23:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62788208C0; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 08:23:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 09 Jan 2018 08:23:52 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fridaylinux.org; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=WDQ2PSJLp8scfi201Pvmi4vntRnN7rSahI1er1lJ2vI=; b=H8WPrQyG xWp1DInANjFoz6z/XVHoLYM8LQ96LFDY+3a4KjWV/ImjRDuslVzSHmODIEzJaTqE v/05yVvd1pQ0RnnkDgoM81aCFmtoeoH0d4FuslfpJwKFUKKwKRK7GCDMgCH2w2Sj WBFpDSA+lkMC8KJ9+Ms7CpXhxGPhAHgbzs+PZbPiJR/dLQphJLeQQEz0yI5nxD8f Y+BvjBM7/xLDDqsUwPjn7kLbl5HGATlha6VfU4j8SLO8tJp5ty1jYv+fYWdQNSuq Wpha7O6RIuXRjXUkihMihc3Z1UAYYUW4xbHQVm3CQVCT8X9PKddKOzmPdg8k/pyO /tO2Pu/w0ikNIg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=WDQ2PSJLp8scfi201Pvmi4vntRnN7 rSahI1er1lJ2vI=; b=htMY1jE7EqqDSdajqGm8GHV9VvWPnhR8hvYkl/+efFaS0 wCaOVKaXHODR+5/lgAKSEwSvudrCFbzRJ7NfjnMOCVIR6BPmAhpMl5LVmrk8xBvh VODF++EDvdqcjYF+KvyvObCIivfM9HpjxAYxmowgSX1DWttTENCdMMx2Qb/yPNnh 7VcPNUTwZQgwJU4IMEVdp2EX8P2ierj0+LSacLx+ZDLucLG1zl15CdNxotAnPp5E KbzFIjPkaCcdAKY/aIEqqcnyox973koyYn8Jw7eKjv4fbiHtfDg02N82eN1bfhxR Jp399/litcOCdKyuLxp+9S4mVO9tYXBkrNIVMBd8Q== X-ME-Sender: Received: from yliu-mob (unknown [115.150.10.63]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 05E3D24235; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 08:23:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 21:23:47 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Zhiyong Yang Cc: dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20180109132347.GL29540@yliu-mob> References: <20180104063332.5248-1-zhiyong.yang@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180104063332.5248-1-zhiyong.yang@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/vhost: fix extend MAX_QUEUES to resolve startup failure X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 13:23:53 -0000 On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 02:33:32PM +0800, Zhiyong Yang wrote: > When binding X710 NIC (i40e driver) to DPDK, vhost sample startups > failure. > The sample requires that MAX_QUEUES should be defined no less than 320. > So, the patch redefines MAX_QUEUES 320 to fix the issue. It just makes the issue disappear. It doesn't really fix the issue. And I belive we have tried to fix this kind of issues in this way many times. (just check the git history). As you known, none of them really worked. You just added one more try, which is very likely will be broken again when Intel has one more new NIC. The error comes from: if (dev_info.max_rx_queues > MAX_QUEUES) { rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "please define MAX_QUEUES no less than %u in %s\n", dev_info.max_rx_queues, __FILE__); } I think such check is overkill and we don't really need that. Could you just remove such check and do some validations on few difference nics? Thanks. --yliu