From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gal.sagie@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-lf0-f52.google.com (mail-lf0-f52.google.com
 [209.85.215.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 531412C52
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  9 Sep 2016 20:52:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-lf0-f52.google.com with SMTP id l131so50343930lfl.2
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 09 Sep 2016 11:52:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=dXp8yWKuVNcPSJcegSR8Zo7ESAYUsgH8IBBdoUyPJvQ=;
 b=eLD86acNeP33VmwzgeeeSm6xkm1sQ5G575OnhZRAhP7fJTo8VT6yijYP5/iaO1cSJk
 aWGgZTm91Z1LQDTi+G++wri2W11B0dK1qjHhlbeaD64962JSalVZZl5s2UNfC58oG83o
 M9uvAbp77LV4r1bsLgC70ub6NL5QIuYQoiUHImVF0fnP82lddk0e2QrhFYRqL6+Y8ylF
 0UCOfurw1aq83lwdjSoIxO9AKKVb5jDp7cRgIPx2CbNfHUdSd+07yLx+JSAkMXyZn9ut
 ZNFksYsfwkSqEfJ8CMmmMyHATXf+QEjkvfNF5GyE/0pWkSZYFaUfs0+QDFOIcq1XPDGm
 Ts+Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=dXp8yWKuVNcPSJcegSR8Zo7ESAYUsgH8IBBdoUyPJvQ=;
 b=Qj6ocu+JW0UOl5uV3rBjDDlg7+i0/B31kUfMhfOQ8W0SYEQ2coVb19pN3LT+zp+ca7
 uhZVzJyddEabUNoJ2MiP8NjWB3USeLDpSc3gsus/nrVb1ElOuUYFkRHyckjK7+oNGqKb
 NGrrGfDHwA4zr4sUKZTXHDAai7yxo4d2kJPrYoueqtdfN7yU1Rre9L8nzGK0SQAF4Rg7
 18KV09wB9huFN1rGScUJ/YAZis2K/l0AbRRZLaFZiljFxuCEi6tRfPSF1avO7DG6WdFZ
 nZAOySgEQnXLiVSmcwjnBxFXyA47KMhIjvjSthZTfpgSarGSnXFz9zqa8XYh37GJk/FR
 vcpw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwNKTPINHYXGq238sd3H31dMyNrT3ppZ1aiqi/4vbigoVafiXPf1/R25OjHGfPOvQoCQk5iQ3ppeDphjzg==
X-Received: by 10.46.33.8 with SMTP id h8mr1763196ljh.36.1473447168612; Fri,
 09 Sep 2016 11:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.214.33 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Sep 2016 11:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gal Sagie <gal.sagie@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 21:52:48 +0300
Message-ID: <CAG9LJa73wjrQ6O=zYSHf7nJ__YRqsEVuaAgRe2FZ2FnXfL0O9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "<dev@dpdk.org>" <dev@dpdk.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Subject: [dpdk-dev] FM10420 (RRC) - Problems with PMD matching on virtual
 functions in ACL table
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: Fri, 09 Sep 2016 18:52:49 -0000

Hello All.

I have an FM10420 card with dual 100G ports, I am running a DPDK
application that binds
two virtual function ports to it.
I tried to set rules to the IES to match on the ports logical id (for the
VF's), the rules are configured well but are not working (not matching).

If i dont use DPDK this works fine.

Anyone has any idea of the problem with the PMD in this regards and how to
solve it?

Thanks
Gal.