| Message ID | 20200226091501.27967-1-Sivaprasad.Tummala@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Marchand |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v1] examples/l2fwd: add check for promiscuous no support | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ci/travis-robot | success | Travis build: passed |
| ci/Intel-compilation | success | Compilation OK |
| ci/iol-testing | success | Testing PASS |
| ci/iol-mellanox-Performance | success | Performance Testing PASS |
| ci/checkpatch | success | coding style OK |
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:15 AM Sivaprasad Tummala <Sivaprasad.Tummala@intel.com> wrote: > > l2fwd application exits, if return for rte_eth_promiscuous_enable > is not success. But for vHost PMD, promiscuous enable returns "Not > Supported". Could the vhost pmd announce that it is already in promiscuous mode? Like in f165210321c4 ("drivers/net: enable promiscuous and multicast by default")
Hi, David On 02/26, David Marchand wrote: >On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:15 AM Sivaprasad Tummala ><Sivaprasad.Tummala@intel.com> wrote: >> >> l2fwd application exits, if return for rte_eth_promiscuous_enable >> is not success. But for vHost PMD, promiscuous enable returns "Not >> Supported". > >Could the vhost pmd announce that it is already in promiscuous mode? >Like in f165210321c4 ("drivers/net: enable promiscuous and multicast >by default") I think it makes sense, I don't see any risk of doing it. I'll cook a patch for it soon. Thanks, Xiaolong > > >-- >David Marchand >
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 2:46 PM Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com> wrote: > On 02/26, David Marchand wrote: > >On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:15 AM Sivaprasad Tummala > ><Sivaprasad.Tummala@intel.com> wrote: > >> > >> l2fwd application exits, if return for rte_eth_promiscuous_enable > >> is not success. But for vHost PMD, promiscuous enable returns "Not > >> Supported". > > > >Could the vhost pmd announce that it is already in promiscuous mode? > >Like in f165210321c4 ("drivers/net: enable promiscuous and multicast > >by default") > > I think it makes sense, I don't see any risk of doing it. I'll cook a patch > for it soon. Now that vhost has been fixed [1], I'll mark this patch as rejected. 1: https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit?id=a2154606ffa6b5ddacbebd8714facc7e2fda3262 Thanks.
diff --git a/examples/l2fwd/main.c b/examples/l2fwd/main.c index 09257aab1..ea9831f07 100644 --- a/examples/l2fwd/main.c +++ b/examples/l2fwd/main.c @@ -727,7 +727,7 @@ main(int argc, char **argv) printf("done: \n"); ret = rte_eth_promiscuous_enable(portid); - if (ret != 0) + if ((ret != 0) && (ret != -ENOTSUP)) rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "rte_eth_promiscuous_enable:err=%s, port=%u\n", rte_strerror(-ret), portid);
l2fwd application exits, if return for rte_eth_promiscuous_enable is not success. But for vHost PMD, promiscuous enable returns "Not Supported". This patch validates success and no support of promiscuous enable. Signed-off-by: Sivaprasad Tummala <Sivaprasad.Tummala@intel.com> --- examples/l2fwd/main.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)