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 97A64425F3; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 04:01:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33F9340278; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 04:01:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from VLXDG1SPAM1.ramaxel.com (email.ramaxel.com [221.4.138.186]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60B534003C for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 04:01:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from V12DG1MBS03.ramaxel.local ([172.26.18.33]) by VLXDG1SPAM1.ramaxel.com with ESMTP id 38J212QQ045263; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 10:01:04 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from wanry@3snic.com) Received: from [10.64.136.151] (10.64.136.151) by V12DG1MBS03.ramaxel.local (172.26.18.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2375.17; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 10:01:00 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 10:00:59 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/32] net/sssnic: support probe and remove To: Stephen Hemminger CC: , , Steven Song References: <20230904045658.238185-1-wanry@3snic.com> <20230904045658.238185-4-wanry@3snic.com> <20230918090806.00aa774e@hermes.local> From: Renyong Wan In-Reply-To: <20230918090806.00aa774e@hermes.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.64.136.151] X-ClientProxiedBy: V12DG1MBS03.ramaxel.local (172.26.18.33) To V12DG1MBS03.ramaxel.local (172.26.18.33) X-DNSRBL: X-SPAM-SOURCE-CHECK: pass X-MAIL: VLXDG1SPAM1.ramaxel.com 38J212QQ045263 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 Hello Stephen, This patch is just a minimum probe frame, it does nothing and always return error. The error check will apear in the subsequent patch([PATCH v5 04/32]), in that patch, hardware base is initialized, so secondary process check is added logically. Thanks. On 2023/9/19 0:08, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Mon, 4 Sep 2023 12:56:29 +0800 > wrote: > >> +static int >> +sssnic_ethdev_init(struct rte_eth_dev *ethdev) >> +{ >> + RTE_SET_USED(ethdev); >> + PMD_INIT_FUNC_TRACE(); >> + >> + return -EINVAL; >> +} > > Since device does not support secondary process, should > check and return error here. -- Regards, Renyong Wan