Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] pci: properly parse 32-bit domain numbers

2020-05-19 Thread David Marchand
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:31 PM Darek Stojaczyk wrote: > > The parsing code was bailing on domains greater than UINT16_MAX, > but domain numbers like that are still valid and present on some systems. > One example is Intel VMD (Volume Management Device), which acts somewhat > as a software-managed

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] pci: properly parse 32-bit domain numbers

2020-05-13 Thread Stojaczyk, Dariusz
> -Original Message- > From: Gaëtan Rivet > Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:04 AM > To: Stephen Hemminger > Cc: Stojaczyk, Dariusz ; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] pci: properly parse 32-bit domain numbers > > [SNIP] > > The original code

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] pci: properly parse 32-bit domain numbers

2020-05-13 Thread Gaëtan Rivet
On 12/05/20 11:16 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:30 pm, Darek Stojaczyk > wrote: > > The parsing code was bailing on domains greater than UINT16_MAX, > > but domain numbers like that are still valid and present on some > > systems. > > One example is Intel VMD (V

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] pci: properly parse 32-bit domain numbers

2020-05-12 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:30 pm, Darek Stojaczyk wrote: The parsing code was bailing on domains greater than UINT16_MAX, but domain numbers like that are still valid and present on some systems. One example is Intel VMD (Volume Management Device), which acts somewhat as a software-managed

Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] pci: properly parse 32-bit domain numbers

2020-05-12 Thread Burakov, Anatoly
On 12-May-20 2:30 PM, Darek Stojaczyk wrote: The parsing code was bailing on domains greater than UINT16_MAX, but domain numbers like that are still valid and present on some systems. One example is Intel VMD (Volume Management Device), which acts somewhat as a software-managed PCI switch and its