From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from serv108.segi.ulg.ac.be (serv108.segi.ulg.ac.be [139.165.32.111]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4715A3DC for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:13:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from mbx12-zne.ulg.ac.be (serv470.segi.ulg.ac.be [139.165.32.199]) by serv108.segi.ulg.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A300200F487 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:13:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mbx12-zne.ulg.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13C9F129E906 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:13:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from mbx12-zne.ulg.ac.be ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mbx12-zne.ulg.ac.be [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id kc-Crr3CZg78 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:13:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from mbx12-zne.ulg.ac.be (mbx12-zne.ulg.ac.be [139.165.32.199]) by mbx12-zne.ulg.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id F26C6129E97B for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:13:53 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:13:53 +0100 (CET) From: tom.barbette@ulg.ac.be To: dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <597694261.17905196.1481728433903.JavaMail.zimbra@ulg.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <415214732.17903310.1481728244157.JavaMail.zimbra@ulg.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.9.48.255] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.0.9_GA_6191 (ZimbraWebClient - FF50 (Linux)/8.0.9_GA_6191) Thread-Topic: No packets received if burst is too small in rte_eth_rx_burst Thread-Index: 5mC6Ngn/+rQSn9NSnP5ExKNHUNETOA== Subject: [dpdk-dev] No packets received if burst is too small in rte_eth_rx_burst 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: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 15:13:54 -0000 Hi list, Between 2.2.0 and 16.04 (up to at least 16.07.2 if not current), with the XL710 controller I do not get any packet when calling rte_eth_rx_burst if nb_pkts is too small. I would say smaller than 32. The input rate is not big, if that helps. But It should definitely get at least one packet per second. Any ideas? Is that a bug or expected behaviour? Could be caused by other ABI changes? Thanks, Tom