From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8A331BB81 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 15:23:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2BB87D83F; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 13:23:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com (unknown [10.18.25.61]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA2F8D7DEF; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 13:23:04 +0000 (UTC) From: Aaron Conole To: Alejandro Lucero Cc: dev , Eelco Chaudron , Pablo Cascon , References: <20180412222208.11770-1-aconole@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 09:23:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Alejandro Lucero's message of "Fri, 13 Apr 2018 09:26:55 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.11.54.5 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.2]); Fri, 13 Apr 2018 13:23:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: inspected by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.2]); Fri, 13 Apr 2018 13:23:07 +0000 (UTC) for IP:'10.11.54.5' DOMAIN:'int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com' HELO:'smtp.corp.redhat.com' FROM:'aconole@redhat.com' RCPT:'' Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC 0/2] nfp driver fixes X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 13:23:08 -0000 Alejandro Lucero writes: > Hi Aaron, > > Thanks for this patches. > > I'm afraid these are not applicable for current NFP driver after commit Okay. > "net/nfp: add NFP CPP support" > > which has been accepted in dpdk-net-next. I think nfp_acquire_process_lock() can be modified as I did in 2/2, but I noticed that there's some reliance on various sysfs files (and I think you point this out in your response to 2/2 as well) and that may be problematic for us with ovs2.8+. I'll do some more digging. Thanks Alejandro! > However, those could be valid for stable versions. I have comments on both patches. Cool. As I noted, I haven't tested them yet, but once I get time to test them I will pull in any feedback and resubmit. I guess if I do, they should really just be for stable fixes? Not sure how that would work. > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:22 AM, Aaron Conole wrote: > > Two fixes, one which is fairly obvious (1/2), the other which may > allow support of non-root users. These patches are only compile tested > which is why they are submitted as RFC. After a proper test, will > resubmit them as PATCH (with any suggested / recommended changes). > > Aaron Conole (2): > nfp: unlink the appropriate lock file > nfp: allow for non-root user > > drivers/net/nfp/nfp_nfpu.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.14.3