> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ananyev, Konstantin > Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:06 PM > To: Wu, Yanglong <yanglong...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: Wu, Yanglong <yanglong...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] net/ixgbe: fix l3fwd start failed on PF > > Hi, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Yanglong Wu > > Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 5:05 PM > > To: dev@dpdk.org > > Cc: Wu, Yanglong <yanglong...@intel.com> > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] net/ixgbe: fix l3fwd start failed on PF > > > > which occurred when the SRIOV is active and tx_q > rx_q. > > The number of nb_q_per_pool should equeal to max number > > of queues supported by HW not nb_rx_q. > > > > Fixes: 27b609cbd1c6 (ethdev: move the multi-queue mode > > check to specific drivers) > > > > Signed-off-by: Yanglong Wu <yanglong...@intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c > > b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c > > index ae9c44421..0f0641da1 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c > > @@ -2180,7 +2180,7 @@ ixgbe_check_vf_rss_rxq_num(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, > uint16_t nb_rx_q) > > return -EINVAL; > > } > > > > - RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool = nb_rx_q; > > + RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool = > > 128/RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).active; > > RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).def_pool_q_idx = pci_dev->max_vfs * nb_rx_q; > > > > return 0; > > -- > > 2.11.0 > > Not sure I understand what is the purpose of that patch... > Do you want to prevent RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool = 1? > Konstantin > I think his purpose is to set the RTE_ETH_DEV_SRIOV(dev).nb_q_per_pool to be the max number of queues in one pool according to the how to split the queue index.
Now, for rss and virtualization mode, ixgbe has combination like 2 queues * 64 pools and 4 queues * 32 pools. BTW, I think the title of this patch need to be reword. It looks confusing if it is a bug in ixgbe. > > >
