From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-f67.google.com (mail-wr1-f67.google.com [209.85.221.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32D5BAAB5 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:37:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr1-f67.google.com with SMTP id c13-v6so13812100wrt.1 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 02:37:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=v7fQosZoVnZ0R7uL2N/Ijw9KAivNy00EzmUCLLszmgY=; b=J5NDbTFKBqkJKkL85JWHVt9CY0O+iVqmR9Fk6nTgLfc1dcNeWb4seMOe/FbZHcxHng udj9Npd3BVOLj4HV4gHhHV7PsxaRWuxiJLXio2x+ujmKTEA2RAgLquVqCkPvlQpEWOhd CyUBwpuICVo4vIt+KhMdjyp4tX+0t+hewzJFQWD7EpnsnnWld1xL5X9nVN1fRRq/dNXF PQE8FpicTfB96V3jSYhdb2hZXo/0NKyPSFCdtz1XOZo12H6LztWvH73dNTXwR66kB7bT yYkYGBXwHBIqKuOZQgvfEK9cWOX7JBy+V1uzItiyhMwsGIG+7SNCU1tnc9a66UN8pDLm RuZA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=v7fQosZoVnZ0R7uL2N/Ijw9KAivNy00EzmUCLLszmgY=; b=XpBBNhH2N06h4gZNbk8ozNNH3MKDrbph0yvR41Vn4Hh/yThId72kodmIKkFNU0UcEG IwpgnVNohR019m/2smTClbM8eBA4JovcoAC1aBPfxQCuDgxVVF8Il5kLintYILdW4zpZ HiqopDfaxivqiv41USHSXpYpokWrVw0UORwOgSaE2WKE+5XW0mqabdNEpIGRrPfyGnjN f8WaqToiWTy29mZeTUZuFdlpueUnpYPEGvnTc9fjblrTly+JiSjq0vtSI/+C6rDo2zct UWmexWtMDGpJIvK9QHahFBPRUlU3OlWyqjuX30muEKK8oq16rZ69OvbDia1WX68YTzDu qfrw== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E1agXlZ8RVNM+//S5Oe6C2PNNJe8UIkulmkTVJjs42YoErPsLRf tJ12pZc8pV2pt5fwSb+6jhRgzw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpc9ePmrfLOl0+HVnGpNVRWODjra2uP2SBYmT8WAFunUfvmfE4cth7He2vN+2Apb7XWqGwGPQA== X-Received: by 2002:adf:9c91:: with SMTP id d17-v6mr16556660wre.11.1531215465919; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 02:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 6wind.com (host.78.145.23.62.rev.coltfrance.com. [62.23.145.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f138-v6sm18995262wmd.13.2018.07.10.02.37.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Jul 2018 02:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:37:29 +0200 From: Adrien Mazarguil To: Shahaf Shuler Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Message-ID: <20180710093729.GJ5211@6wind.com> References: <20180704172322.22571-1-adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com> <20180705083934.5535-1-adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com> <20180705083934.5535-11-adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 10/10] net/mlx5: support negative identifiers for port representors 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, 10 Jul 2018 09:37:46 -0000 On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 11:58:05AM +0000, Shahaf Shuler wrote: > Adrien, thank for this patch. > > Thursday, July 5, 2018 11:46 AM, Adrien Mazarguil: > > Subject: [PATCH v4 10/10] net/mlx5: support negative identifiers for port > > representors > > > > This patch brings support for BlueField representors. > > > > Signed-off-by: Adrien Mazarguil > > Cc: Shahaf Shuler > > -- > > v3 changes: > > > > - This patch was not present in prior revisions. > > --- > > drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5.c | 8 ++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5.c index > > 12a77afa8..df7f39844 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5.c > > @@ -1330,6 +1330,14 @@ mlx5_pci_probe(struct rte_pci_driver *pci_drv > > __rte_unused, > > memset(&list[i].info, 0, sizeof(list[i].info)); > > continue; > > } > > + /* > > + * Port representors not associated with any VFs (e.g. on > > + * BlueField devices) report -1 as a port identifier. > > + * Quietly set it to zero since DPDK only supports positive > > + * values. > > + */ > > I am waiting for the final answer from the BlueField team about the way they are going to enum the BlueField representors. > In case it will be the same as x86 I think we can drop this patch, otherwise use it, agree? No problem. Note this patch is also based on the assumption that there's only one such device, but I couldn't verify it. -- Adrien Mazarguil 6WIND