Hello Anatoly,
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 2:31 PM David Marchand
wrote:
>
> At the moment, if VFIO is not available at DPDK init, it won't be
> available unless a subsequent rte_vfio_enable() is done.
>
> Yet, even if rte_vfio_enable() is called again in primary and secondary
> processes, a secondar
On 02/10/2024 14:31, David Marchand wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 10:20 AM Maxime Coquelin
> wrote:
>> On 9/16/24 14:30, David Marchand wrote:
>>> At the moment, if VFIO is not available at DPDK init, it won't be
>>> available unless a subsequent rte_vfio_enable() is done.
>>>
>>> Yet, even if
On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 10:20 AM Maxime Coquelin
wrote:
> On 9/16/24 14:30, David Marchand wrote:
> > At the moment, if VFIO is not available at DPDK init, it won't be
> > available unless a subsequent rte_vfio_enable() is done.
> >
> > Yet, even if rte_vfio_enable() is called again in primary and
On 9/16/24 14:30, David Marchand wrote:
At the moment, if VFIO is not available at DPDK init, it won't be
available unless a subsequent rte_vfio_enable() is done.
Yet, even if rte_vfio_enable() is called again in primary and secondary
processes, a secondary process will never get to know that
At the moment, if VFIO is not available at DPDK init, it won't be
available unless a subsequent rte_vfio_enable() is done.
Yet, even if rte_vfio_enable() is called again in primary and secondary
processes, a secondary process will never get to know that VFIO has been
enabled in the primary process
5 matches
Mail list logo