Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/6] DPDK changes for accommodating ENIC PMD

[David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>]

Mmm, I am not that familiar with vfio code, but I would say that there is
something buggy in pci_vfio_map_resource() when compared
to pci_uio_map_resource().
Is not there a problem with finding the right index of dev->mem_resource[]
array ?


-- 
David Marchand


On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Sujith Sankar (ssujith) <ssujith@cisco.com>
wrote:

>  Hi David,
>
>  During the testing, I saw that the length field was 0.  ENIC PMD
> validates the length of the BAR against a max value.
> In order to get the length in the resource structure, I added this
> statement.
>
>  Thanks,
> -Sujith
>
>   From: David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>
> Date: Monday, 24 November 2014 4:33 pm
> To: "Sujith Sankar (ssujith)" <ssujith@cisco.com>
> Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Prasad Rao (prrao)" <prrao@cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/6] DPDK changes for accommodating
> ENIC PMD
>
>    Hello Sujith,
>
>  On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Sujith Sankar <ssujith@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci_vfio.c
>> b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci_vfio.c
>> index c776ddc..6bf8f2e 100644
>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci_vfio.c
>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci_vfio.c
>> @@ -736,6 +736,7 @@ pci_vfio_map_resource(struct rte_pci_device *dev)
>>                 maps[i].offset = reg.offset;
>>                 maps[i].size = reg.size;
>>                 dev->mem_resource[i].addr = bar_addr;
>> +               dev->mem_resource[i].len = reg.size;
>>         }
>>
>>         /* if secondary process, do not set up interrupts */
>>
>
>  Not sure I understand why you need to overwrite the length value.
> This is supposed to be initialised before by "generic" code.
> This looks like a hack or a workaround.
>
>  Can you elaborate on this change ?
> Thanks.
>
>
>  --
> David Marchand
>
>