> >From: Christian Ehrhardt [mailto:[email protected]] > >Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 1:04 PM > >To: Kavanagh, Mark B <[email protected]> > >Cc: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>; > >[email protected] > >Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC PATCH V2 1/2] netdev-dpdk: DPDK v17.11 > >upgrade > > > >On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Mark Kavanagh > ><[email protected]> > >wrote: > >> This commit adds support for DPDK v17.11: > >> - minor updates to accomodate DPDK API changes > >> - update references to DPDK version in Documentation > >> - update DPDK version in travis' linux-build script > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Mark Kavanagh <[email protected]> > > > > > >> diff --git a/lib/netdev-dpdk.c b/lib/netdev-dpdk.c index > >> 76e79be..ed5bf62 100644 > >> --- a/lib/netdev-dpdk.c > >> +++ b/lib/netdev-dpdk.c > >> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ > >> #include <sys/socket.h> > >> #include <linux/if.h> > >> > >> +#include <rte_bus_pci.h> > >> #include <rte_config.h> > >> #include <rte_cycles.h> > >> #include <rte_errno.h> > >> @@ -150,8 +151,8 @@ BUILD_ASSERT_DECL((MAX_NB_MBUF / > >ROUND_DOWN_POW2(MAX_NB_MBUF/MIN_NB_MBUF)) > >> > >> #define DPDK_ETH_PORT_ID_INVALID RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS > >> > >> -/* DPDK library uses uint8_t for port_id. */ -typedef uint8_t > >> dpdk_port_t; > >> +/* DPDK library uses uint16_t for port_id. */ typedef uint16_t > >> +dpdk_port_t; > >> > >> #define VHOST_ENQ_RETRY_NUM 8 > >> #define IF_NAME_SZ (PATH_MAX > IFNAMSIZ ? PATH_MAX : IFNAMSIZ) @@ > >> -2582,7 +2583,7 @@ netdev_dpdk_detach(struct unixctl_conn *conn, int > >> argc > >OVS_UNUSED, > >> { > >> int ret; > >> char *response; > >> - uint8_t port_id; > >> + dpdk_port_t port_id; > >> char devname[RTE_ETH_NAME_MAX_LEN]; > >> struct netdev_dpdk *dev;
As an FYI the change for the DPDK port ID above has been added to master already from a previous patch submitted by Mark as part of the latest pull request for OVS DPDK with commit 7ee94cbac874910174bd5e160482a5aaeb64f4e5. Thanks Ian > > > >Hi Mark, > >I today independently came to exactly the same changes to get it > >building until I saw this mail. > >We discussed the option to handle things depending on the DPDK version > >built against via config time checks, but then as OVS "defines" a DPDK > >version that it matches you might not want/need that complexity. > > Hi Christian, > > Thanks for the review/ack. > > Can you provide some additional details regarding the config time checks > that you mentioned? > > Thanks in advance, > Mark > > > > >That said it implies I reviewed and tested (well built) them, so > >bumping the thread and feel free to add: > >Reviewed-by: Christian Ehrhardt <[email protected]> > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
