From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EBDD1B738 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:18:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Oct 2017 23:18:28 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.43,426,1503385200"; d="scan'208";a="164149402" Received: from rhorton-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [163.33.230.40]) ([163.33.230.40]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Oct 2017 23:18:27 -0700 From: Remy Horton To: Luca Boccassi , dev@dpdk.org References: <20171019134827.22740-1-luca.boccassi@gmail.com> <20171019134827.22740-2-luca.boccassi@gmail.com> <1508429659.31273.2.camel@debian.org> Cc: wenzhuo.lu@intel.com, wei.dai@intel.com Organization: Intel Shannon Limited Message-ID: <8de2f02a-5434-3fb8-8fed-7bb013f6c49c@intel.com> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 07:18:26 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1508429659.31273.2.camel@debian.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] ethdev: pre-emptively document rte_eth_dev_reset error code 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, 24 Oct 2017 06:18:30 -0000 On 19/10/2017 17:14, Luca Boccassi wrote: [..] > We've adapted and used these patches with the early rte_eth_dev_reset > for a year in production now, and we had a customer who requested it > since they were running into the problem it solves (PF flaps). > > I have adapted them on the latest 17.11 tree and tested with X540 > 10gbit cards, and it seems to work as before. Should I send an RFC and > CC all of you? Since it sounds stable, probably best to post the updated/rebased patch. Should get merged as long as nothing breaks. > Incidentally, are there specific reasons why the VF functionality was > dropped since the first patches were sent? I'm personally not sure, but the others should know.