From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F54AA0A02; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 12:55:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF74B1411D0; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 12:55:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [63.128.21.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DBE71411CE for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 12:55:45 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1610625344; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=d7IH1V6nogG+8zk9xUAhKq7a4YNZQ6WJ6SfJDkYfv+8=; b=XmtAxDrR8gWv0IaNeQtrivTaI79nNxD+QE+CnLCLcqeoTDEH2n8hF8H0DVUk9v26AYA9wx oI1j4YQwsvMGgdahhFczaYT401aEep1h2YftynU0CDupmBUpXl0xQPX0sTzWPjY9X+oeUY tMN5oFZaToKMAU0aDf+Tswnkox4XN+8= Received: from mail-ua1-f72.google.com (mail-ua1-f72.google.com [209.85.222.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-94-Q5e1L3idP5Ge7hD8rgS9vQ-1; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 06:55:43 -0500 X-MC-Unique: Q5e1L3idP5Ge7hD8rgS9vQ-1 Received: by mail-ua1-f72.google.com with SMTP id c46so441973uad.1 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 03:55:43 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=d7IH1V6nogG+8zk9xUAhKq7a4YNZQ6WJ6SfJDkYfv+8=; b=VURx0zrf89/+eB5ilnLk73ErTIixAhBMHZ7fW5d6n16jkrK62ksh5tH36A5cGEpqsf W9EhTT+Wu2TUs+3o2dCmMHnmy77z+fqN5rqjzRy8+QBdDpao1XCSS1Y4YLJa+ueJXSu3 UflpmYIkFvlAFYI98OKV/qo1GpCabauUZI18bZNM6ad7NVfECKrFnfhSkFZS07HIluoc qSby4aeN78EdZOqh8C4n65NcnW/5ikPMIYxDCOXbuCP+uLqpHc0j5YL0TXAgAawpdtQk vlcPqH/WT5i+wmgBRGuLNXKc9j65cMN9dDb/qapNvRQAzCk0QXKqxiaOVS4URg3v39Ny J6KQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ChNrbyfpgODE2zf1wjDhX11NuC6RnWTmGgvZHkpFHUn+FLe94 R+pF9B4sXQxG5rp0N7CpvuamNLziTl7t/rhYTQc6ZBDHmqGeCy/sDVwrj0SIWe9h8paNsjY2KTx C++aiaow/RVIfwpknVWg= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:cec1:: with SMTP id e184mr5809503vkg.17.1610625342647; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 03:55:42 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwoEC7j8JxzyIt+oKwy4lw/QfnWELf0jVo8L8tzgBFmcUo/Zd04xymoL6HDOkXQWTXqCapgHoFA5ua2JtFdx54= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:cec1:: with SMTP id e184mr5809481vkg.17.1610625342327; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 03:55:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201220211405.313012-1-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com> <20201220211405.313012-3-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com> <53405a21-588b-71e6-b1e7-71f75acdda05@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <53405a21-588b-71e6-b1e7-71f75acdda05@redhat.com> From: David Marchand Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 12:55:31 +0100 Message-ID: To: Maxime Coquelin Cc: dev , "Xia, Chenbo" , Olivier Matz , Adrian Moreno Zapata Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dmarchan@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 02/40] net/virtio: Introduce Virtio bus type X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:55 AM Maxime Coquelin wrote: > >>> @@ -1919,7 +1918,7 @@ eth_virtio_dev_init(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev) > >>> eth_dev->rx_descriptor_done = virtio_dev_rx_queue_done; > >>> > >>> if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_SECONDARY) { > >>> - if (!hw->virtio_user_dev) { > >>> + if (hw->bus_type != VIRTIO_BUS_USER) { > >> > >> In the rest of the patch, we check for PCI types when dealing with PCI > >> code, so I'd rather be consistent and check for modern and legacy pci > >> types here too. > > > > Agree, it is not consistent. I fixed it here and below for v2. > > Wait, as we discussed off-list, we need hw->bus_type != VIRTIO_BUS_USER, > as the bus_type is still unknown for PCI bus at that stage. Yep, thanks for double checking. -- David Marchand