Added relevant callback function to change a KNI device's MAC address
Signed-off-by: Padam Jeet Singh
---
lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_net.c | 16
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_net.c
b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_net.c
ind
From: Pablo de Lara
In EAL flags unit test, vdev test was being included
(and broken) in whitelist test. It has been separated
in different test and fixed, by calling another
primary process, instead of a secondary one.
Patch "app/test: fix build switches to enable cmdline tests"
from Thomas Mon
2014-07-01 14:19, Doherty, Declan:
> Hi Robert, yes I see this could be an issue, although this currently
> shouldn?t cause an issue, as the currently supported bonding modes only
> expected to receive data on one slave at any time, if they are being used
> as part of a ether channel but when we ad
Hi Declan,
Do you confirm we should merge the Robert's patch in rc3?
2014-06-30 18:29, Robert Sanford:
> I see a potential problem with bond_ethdev_rx_burst( ).
> We could receive more packets than the caller asked for, and overrun the
> caller's rte_mbuf * array.
> The fix could be something lik
The SET_ETHTOOL_OPS has been removed from upstream, so it
breaks the dpdk build with recent kernels.
Signed-off-by: Flavio Leitner
---
lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/ethtool/igb/igb_ethtool.c | 4 ++--
lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/ethtool/ixgbe/ixgbe.h | 1 -
lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/
The third release candidate of version 1.7.0 can be downloaded here:
http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tag/?id=v1.7.0-rc3
Please test it.
It should be the latest release candidate before 1.7.0.
You can check the log here:
http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/log
A short changelog will be provided
From: Robert Sanford [mailto:rsanfo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 11:30 PM
To: Doherty, Declan
Cc: dev at dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 1/5] bond: new link bonding library
Hi Declan,
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Declan Doherty mailto:declan.doherty at intel.com>> w
Hi Pablo,
On 07/01/2014 01:44 PM, De Lara Guarch, Pablo wrote:
> Thanks for this. It works fine :)
Thanks for testing!
> Actually, I am thinking of creating a separate test
> for vdev, out of whitelist test, as it has no relation with it. Do you agree
> on this?
I have no problem with that, it
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MATZ
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 1:01 PM
> To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] app/test: fix vdev test in test_eal_flags
>
> Hi Pablo,
>
> On 07/01/2014
Hi Matt,
> I'm curious - is it possible in practical terms to run DPDK without hugepages?
Starting with release 1.7.0, support for VFIO was added, which allows using
DPDK without hugepages at al (including RX/TX rings) via the --no-huge
command-line parameter. Bear in mind though that you'll h
Hi Olivier,
> -Original Message-
> From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 10:21 AM
> To: dev at dpdk.org; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> Cc: olivier.matz at 6wind.com
> Subject: [PATCH v2] app/test: fix vdev test in test_eal_flags
>
> In whitelist te
In whitelist test, within EAL flags unit test, the vdev flag test fails
because it is started in a secondary process, which is not able to
allocate memzones and this is required to instanciate a pmd_ring.
This patch changes the vdev flag test to run it in a primary process.
Patch "app/test: fix b
Hi Pablo,
On 07/01/2014 10:59 AM, De Lara Guarch, Pablo wrote:
> I checked your patch, and I got this:
>
> ...
>
> EAL: Detected lcore 38 as core 11 on socket 1
> EAL: Detected lcore 39 as core 12 on socket 1
> EAL: Support maximum 64 logical core(s) by configuration.
> EAL: Detected 40 lcore(s)
>
Hi,
> Hi Matt,
>
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 05:43:39PM -0500, Matt Laswell wrote:
> > Hey Folks,
> >
> > In my application, I'm seeing some design considerations in a project
> > I'm working on that push me towards the use of smaller memory page
> > sizes. I'm curious - is it possible in practica
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Richardson, Bruce <
bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Alex Markuze
> > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 3:01 AM
> > To: dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] Memory Pinning.
In whitelist test, within EAL flags unit test, the vdev flag test fails
because it is started in a secondary process, which is not able to
allocate memzones and this is required to instanciate a pmd_ring.
This patch changes the vdev flag test to run it in a primary process.
Patch "app/test: fix b
Hi Pablo,
On 06/30/2014 04:42 PM, Pablo de Lara wrote:
> From: Pablo de Lara
>
> In whitelist test, within EAL flags unit test, vdev flag
> was being tested, but test fails, as a secondary process
> cannot allocate memzones, so it cannot create the device
> and application exits. Also, this can b
Hi Olivier,
> -Original Message-
> From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 9:31 AM
> To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo; dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: Olivier MATZ
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/test: Removed vdev test in EAL flags
> unit test
>
> Hi Pab
Hi Matt,
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 05:43:39PM -0500, Matt Laswell wrote:
> Hey Folks,
>
> In my application, I'm seeing some design considerations in a project
> I'm working on that push me towards the use of smaller memory page
> sizes. I'm curious - is it possible in practical terms to run DPD
Tested-by: Waterman Cao
This patch updated Cmdline unit test, and is ready to integrate into DPDK.org.
Thanks everybody,
It sounds as though what I'm looking for may be possible, especially with
1.7, but will require some tweaking and there will most definitely be a
performance hit. That's great information. This is still just an
experiment for us, and it's not at all guaranteed that I'm going to
21 matches
Mail list logo
