On 12/17/2018 7:59 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > This can go to 18.11 stable
I will add fixes and stable tags while merging, please provide them with commit to ensure the backport of the patches to the stable trees. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 2:49 AM > To: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: Stephen Hemminger <sthem...@microsoft.com>; Kevin Traynor > <ktray...@redhat.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/3] net/netvsc: not finding VF should not > cause failure > > On 12/14/2018 1:26 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> It is possible that the VF device exists but DPDK doesn't know >> about it. This could happen if device was blacklisted or more >> likely the necessary device (Mellanox) was not part of the DPDK >> configuration. >> >> In either case, the right thing to do is just keep working >> but only with the slower para-virtual device. > > Same question for this one, is this something that should be backported? > Is it intentionally left out from backporting? > > Just a reminder, for backport, a patch needs a few markers, > - fix patch with fixes line > - Cc: sta...@dpdk.org line > >> >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <sthem...@microsoft.com> >> --- >> drivers/net/netvsc/hn_ethdev.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/netvsc/hn_ethdev.c b/drivers/net/netvsc/hn_ethdev.c >> index de872212d3f3..1f7a7e66a51b 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/netvsc/hn_ethdev.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/netvsc/hn_ethdev.c >> @@ -788,7 +788,7 @@ eth_hn_dev_init(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev) >> >> err = hn_vf_add(eth_dev, hv); >> if (err) >> - goto failed; >> + hv->vf_present = 0; >> } >> >> return 0; >> >