From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <mhall@mhcomputing.net> Received: from mail.mhcomputing.net (master.mhcomputing.net [74.208.46.186]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36EF8C8F4 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 04:38:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.160] (99-34-229-174.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [99.34.229.174]) by mail.mhcomputing.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 97EE680C003; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:35:29 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Matthew Hall <mhall@mhcomputing.net> In-Reply-To: <20150619101531.GC6880@bricha3-MOBL3> Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:37:59 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8D38B3DE-4FA3-4053-9165-DCFC53843902@mhcomputing.net> References: <20150619033746.GA24292@mhcomputing.net> <20150619043102.GA25396@mhcomputing.net> <20150619101531.GC6880@bricha3-MOBL3> To: "<dev@dpdk.org>" <dev@dpdk.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK v2.0.0 has different rte_eal_pci_probe() behavior X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 02:38:04 -0000 On Jun 19, 2015, at 3:15 AM, Bruce Richardson = <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote: > Thank you. It's finally nice to get some good news about = compatibility! :-) Hi Bruce, I did manage to find just one weird issue when I was trying to use the = new DPDK v2.0.0. Previously I had code which was calling = rte_eal_pci_probe() after rte_eal_init, rte_set_log_level, = rte_mempool_create steps were completed, based on some of the sample = applications. However it seems like the new code is calling this = function itself inside of rte_eal_init. So then the second call to it from my application raises some pretty odd = errors and causes DPDK to terminate because it was one of the = whitelisted PCI devices which is considered mandatory to succeed in the = init process: EAL: PCI device 0000:00:09.0 on NUMA socket -1 EAL: probe driver: 8086:100e rte_em_pmd EAL: PCI memory mapped at 0x7ff0dc200000 PMD: eth_em_dev_init(): port_id 0 vendorID=3D0x8086 deviceID=3D0x100e EAL: PCI device 0000:00:09.0 on NUMA socket -1 EAL: probe driver: 8086:100e rte_em_pmd EAL: PCI memory mapped at 0x7ff0dc220000 EAL: Error - exiting with code: 1 Cause: Requested device 0000:00:09.0 cannot be used I am not sure if it means I screwed up and wasn't doing it right in the = first place and it was always incorrect to do it the way I did or if = this is a behavior change that should be documented somewhere. Has = anybody else seen this behavior? Matthew.=