On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 03:44:28 -0700 Xiao Wang <xiao.w.w...@intel.com> wrote:
> According to spec, we should write virtqueue index into the notify > address, rather than 1. Besides, some HW backend may rely on the data > written to identify which queue need to serve. > > Fixes: 6ba1f63b5ab0 ("virtio: support specification 1.0") > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org > > Signed-off-by: Xiao Wang <xiao.w.w...@intel.com> > --- > drivers/net/virtio/virtio_pci.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_pci.c b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_pci.c > index ce9a9d3..b767c03 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_pci.c > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio/virtio_pci.c > @@ -504,7 +504,7 @@ > static void > modern_notify_queue(struct virtio_hw *hw __rte_unused, struct virtqueue *vq) > { > - rte_write16(1, vq->notify_addr); > + rte_write16(vq->vq_queue_index, vq->notify_addr); > } Yes, this looks correct. It is what Linux and FreeBSD drivers do. Reviewed-by: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>