From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0205.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.205]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E09018F for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 16:36:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from CO2PR0501MB870.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.247.15) by CO2PR0501MB870.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.247.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.14; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:38:49 +0000 Received: from CO2PR0501MB870.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.247.15]) by CO2PR0501MB870.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.247.15]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.014; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:38:49 +0000 From: Patrick McGleenon To: Anjali Kulkarni , "Richardson, Bruce" , "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] Question on using SR-IOV with dpdk apps Thread-Index: AQHPsCJeUSjpLEQ42U+wY3VofjJpepvCE+iQ Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:38:48 +0000 Message-ID: <78e1ff3841f6401c828eab452ea8b4f1@CO2PR0501MB870.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [62.7.173.4] x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID: x-forefront-prvs: 02945962BD x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(51704005)(13464003)(189002)(199002)(24454002)(479174003)(377454003)(83072002)(2656002)(4396001)(46102001)(85852003)(87936001)(86362001)(76482001)(81542001)(81342001)(64706001)(20776003)(83322001)(76576001)(74502001)(74662001)(66066001)(31966008)(19580405001)(19580395003)(80022001)(101416001)(107046002)(107886001)(99396002)(79102001)(76176999)(54356999)(50986999)(92566001)(99286002)(85306004)(77982001)(74316001)(21056001)(106356001)(33646002)(106116001)(1941001)(95666004)(105586002)(24736002)(108616003); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:CO2PR0501MB870; H:CO2PR0501MB870.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: owmobility.com Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Question on using SR-IOV with dpdk apps 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, 05 Aug 2014 14:36:37 -0000 I had this when the PF was down, bringing it back with "ifup" fixed it. A= ssuming you've already checked it's not the issue described in the FAQ :) With a RHEL 6.5 host the ixgbe driver prints the VF MAC addresses in /var/l= og/syslog when the VFs are enabled -----Original Message----- From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Anjali Kulkarni Sent: 04 August 2014 21:26 To: Anjali Kulkarni; Richardson, Bruce; dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Question on using SR-IOV with dpdk apps The 4 devices in qs are at 04:10.0, 04:10.1, 04:10.2, 04:10.3 Anjali On 8/4/14 1:24 PM, "Anjali Kulkarni" wrote: >It seems to have detected all 4. But I do see a MAC address not valid: >: >: >(scrolled up) > >EAL: PCI device 0000:04:10.1 on NUMA socket 0 =81 >EAL: probe driver: 8086:10ed rte_ixgbevf_pmd =81 >EAL: PCI memory mapped at 0x7fd39743e000 =81 >EAL: PCI memory mapped at 0x7fd39743a000 =81 >PMD: The MAC address is not valid. =81 > The most likely cause of this error is that the VM host =81 > has not assigned a valid MAC address to this VF device. =81 > Please consult the DPDK Release Notes (FAQ section) for =81 > a possible solution to this problem. =81 >EAL: PCI device 0000:04:10.2 on NUMA socket 0 =81 >EAL: probe driver: 8086:10ed rte_ixgbevf_pmd =81 >EAL: PCI memory mapped at 0x7fd397436000 =81 >EAL: PCI memory mapped at 0x7fd397432000 =81 >EAL: PCI device 0000:04:10.3 on NUMA socket 0 =81 >EAL: probe driver: 8086:10ed rte_ixgbevf_pmd =81 >EAL: PCI memory mapped at 0x7fd39742e000 =81 >EAL: PCI memory mapped at 0x7fd39742a000 =81 >PMD: The MAC address is not valid. =81 > The most likely cause of this error is that the VM host =81 > has not assigned a valid MAC address to this VF device. =81 > Please consult the DPDK Release Notes (FAQ section) for =81 > a possible solution to this problem. > >