From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC4E58EF for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:34:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2015 07:34:53 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,576,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="480755903" Received: from irsmsx152.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.66]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2015 07:34:53 -0700 Received: from irsmsx102.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.2]) by IRSMSX152.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.6.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:34:51 +0100 From: "Wodkowski, PawelX" To: Eric Kinzie Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/5] bond: use existing enslaved device queues Thread-Index: AQHQcIty+/uTXXqx+0q9rwCUF7Y4P51F8tCAgAaaJACAABHEcA== Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:34:51 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1428339685-27686-1-git-send-email-ehkinzie@gmail.com> <1428339685-27686-2-git-send-email-ehkinzie@gmail.com> <55277E59.1020200@intel.com> <20150414142920.GA24843@roosta.home> In-Reply-To: <20150414142920.GA24843@roosta.home> Accept-Language: pl-PL, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/5] bond: use existing enslaved device queues 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, 14 Apr 2015 14:34:55 -0000 >=20 > Pawel, >=20 > I generally test things I've just built using virtio devices and calling > rte_eth_tx_queue_setup() more than once for a given queue id fails. > However, it seems that most PMDs allow re-allocating device queues while > virtio does not (xenvirt also seems to lack this functionality), so I > don't think my approach here is right. I'll remove this patch when I > send the next version of this series. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Eric Maybe you should rise this as separate issue maintainers of these drivers? --=20 Pawel