From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (mail-we0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A38E590C for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 10:13:52 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-we0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k11so9350241wes.31 for ; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 01:13:52 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=vM6bZZHSKmenpYzAfGLFSr5gQA4H0tF2C+Yi2YAkm80=; b=bbWqKEIc/JHur38Djh0eg8EhcVd33r16DskKGIEOskkZ2LR+F0lgqoLu+LV03BcwVM zIEibjAg9t0T7BjbE/AUm3KI/YxsbRCMYstfpDyuYgZaRIyfVD5lAGD/5cbkxl+5qI+y YN9CgK1KXT9Wb/i5taDGZ0hpQ7wBAckI2LeuhBltQJecSw1FR1BgyweV/WLEdplooMbE hxkypZlm0zL48lyaZmSBJ2y/TIy9f2siXvABDu8m1dOGvELO7WONphDkBxOyOifiS6lR CXJKEgoYM7yKINFzBO5ewhwNrOwKrVaGfLmyG0NAvnt+9LioyOtx1WP8crw8Gf7zdLhp mECw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkMe48LlxczHL5FerycFWgnbpaeyybimErX0Mif/5FZq5d9eLBUsZNdWC8Jqz4hlvuYi5iV X-Received: by 10.180.101.200 with SMTP id fi8mr34736407wib.77.1420535632109; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 01:13:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (110.26.90.92.rev.sfr.net. [92.90.26.110]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i3sm13120040wie.23.2015.01.06.01.13.50 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Jan 2015 01:13:51 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Lyn M Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 10:02:25 +0100 Message-ID: <1613023.VipzgMKAkl@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.3 (Linux/3.17.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <20150101040032.GA11645@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] l3fwd error, port 0 is not present on the board X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 09:13:52 -0000 2015-01-02 09:07, Lyn M: > In my original post, I thought my choice of hex portmask -p 0x3 was causing > this issue -- now I know that was not the case. But, I am still curious > about how the hex portmask is determined. Since I only have two ports > bound to igb_uio, my hex postmask will always be 0x3? What if I choose to > bind other ports to igb_uio? Is there a Linux command I can run to > determine what mask to use with the -p option? That's something which could be done. Port numbering is defined by probing order. Does a tool showing the (dry-run) probed devices, their number and mask, would help you? By the way, you are welcome to try developing it. -- Thomas