From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1445D9A92 for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 08:47:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Feb 2015 23:47:55 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,643,1418112000"; d="scan'208";a="690440840" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.217.248.122]) ([10.217.248.122]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Feb 2015 23:47:55 -0800 Message-ID: <54ED7E29.7000102@intel.com> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 08:47:53 +0100 From: Pawel Wodkowski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Ouyang, Changchun" , "dev@dpdk.org" References: <1421672551-11652-1-git-send-email-pawelx.wodkowski@intel.com> <1424361289-30718-1-git-send-email-pawelx.wodkowski@intel.com> <1424361289-30718-4-git-send-email-pawelx.wodkowski@intel.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/7] pmd: igb/ixgbe split nb_q_per_pool to rx and tx nb_q_per_pool 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: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 07:47:58 -0000 On 2015-02-25 04:24, Ouyang, Changchun wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Pawel Wodkowski >> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:55 PM >> To: dev@dpdk.org >> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/7] pmd: igb/ixgbe split nb_q_per_pool to rx >> and tx nb_q_per_pool >> [...] >> >> /* check valid queue number */ >> - if ((nb_rx_q > RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool) || >> - (nb_tx_q > RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool)) { >> + if ((nb_rx_q > RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_tx_q_per_pool) > > Here, how about use nb_rx_q_per_pool to replace nb_tx_q_per_pool ? > so it will be more clear to check rx queue number. Yes, this should be nb_rx_q_per_pool. I missed this, because in next patch I moved this and corrected "on the fly" :). I will correct this in next version. -- Pawel