On 10/10/2016 2:01 PM, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > > > W dniu 10.10.2016 o 12:19, Ferruh Yigit pisze: >> Hi Kamil, >> >> On 9/30/2016 1:05 PM, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: >>> It's possible to have the same numbers for bus, device id and function, >>> therefore we need to differentiate on domain. >>> >>> This enables DPDK with multiple VFs on ThunderX 2-socket hardware. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Maciej Czekaj <maciej.czekaj at caviumnetworks.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Kamil Rytarowski <kamil.rytarowski at caviumnetworks.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Zyta Szpak <zyta.szpak at semihalf.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Slawomir Rosek <slawomir.rosek at semihalf.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Radoslaw Biernacki <rad at semihalf.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com> >>> --- >>> lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c >>> index 382c959..01d5fb0 100644 >>> --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c >>> +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c >>> @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ rte_eth_dev_create_unique_device_name(char *name, >>> size_t size, >>> { >>> int ret; >>> >>> - ret = snprintf(name, size, "%d:%d.%d", >>> + ret = snprintf(name, size, "%d:%d:%d.%d", pci_dev->addr.domain, >>> pci_dev->addr.bus, pci_dev->addr.devid, >>> pci_dev->addr.function); >>> if (ret < 0) >>> >> Is it possible to separate this patch from patchset, this is a ethdev >> patch and it seems not directly related to the rest of the patchset? >> >> Thanks, >> ferruh > > This patch is directly related with secondary queue set support on > ThunderX, but it can be skipped in this chain of patches and applied as > a standalone diff. > > Is disabling this one on patch work sufficient? Of course unless there > are no more comments to produce v3 of the original patch chain "Add > support for secondary queue set in nicvf thunderx driver".
I think it is sufficient, at least I don't have any more comment for rest of the patchset and it looks good to me. > > Should I resubmit it as a new standalone patch? Can you please resubmit just this one patch, so it can be properly reviewed. Thanks, ferruh