On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 2:08 PM Gaetan Rivet wrote:
>
> [...]
> >>> (gdb) p dev2
> >>> $5 = (struct rte_pci_device *) 0x54de5e0
> >>> (gdb) p /x *dev2
> >>> $6 = {next = {tqe_next = 0x5307460, tqe_prev = 0x5539f80}, device =
> >>> {next = {tqe_next = 0x0, tqe_prev = 0x0}, name = 0x54e4f00, driver
[...]
(gdb) p dev2
$5 = (struct rte_pci_device *) 0x54de5e0
(gdb) p /x *dev2
$6 = {next = {tqe_next = 0x5307460, tqe_prev = 0x5539f80}, device =
{next = {tqe_next = 0x0, tqe_prev = 0x0}, name = 0x54e4f00, driver =
0x3a6b7f0,
bus = 0x3a59a00, numa_node = 0x0, devargs = 0x0}, addr = {domain =
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 8:04 PM Gaetan Rivet wrote:
>
> Hi Somnath,
>
> Reformating the mails, to keep with the inner-posting (mixing top-posting and
> inner-posting
> makes it hard to follow). See the end of the mail.
>
>
> >> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 2:47 PM Gaetan Rivet wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 05
On 10/02/2020 15:34, Gaetan Rivet wrote:
Hi Somnath,
Reformating the mails, to keep with the inner-posting (mixing top-posting and
inner-posting
makes it hard to follow). See the end of the mail.
[...]
Any updates on this ?
My thoughts on this are just as I'd suspected / suggested earlier
Hi Somnath,
Reformating the mails, to keep with the inner-posting (mixing top-posting and
inner-posting
makes it hard to follow). See the end of the mail.
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 2:47 PM Gaetan Rivet wrote:
On 05/02/2020 09:52, Somnath Kotur wrote:
Hello Gaetan,
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:
HI Gaetan,
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 9:36 AM Somnath Kotur wrote:
>
> Hello Gaetan,
> Sorry my bad, i think i captured it for the wrong BDF ...
> So the overarching goal here is that i want to create/add a
> representor port for 06:02.01 using 06:02:00 as the backing/parent
> device on
Hello Gaetan,
Sorry my bad, i think i captured it for the wrong BDF ...
So the overarching goal here is that i want to create/add a
representor port for 06:02.01 using 06:02:00 as the backing/parent
device on the vswitch.
I recaptured the debug with 06:02:00
Breakpoint 1, pci_name_set
On 05/02/2020 09:52, Somnath Kotur wrote:
Hello Gaetan,
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:19 PM Gaetan Rivet wrote:
On 04/02/2020 10:15, Somnath Kotur wrote:
As per the comments in this code section, "since there is a matching device,
it is now its responsibility to manage the devargs we've just ins
Hello Gaetan,
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:19 PM Gaetan Rivet wrote:
>
> On 04/02/2020 10:15, Somnath Kotur wrote:
> > As per the comments in this code section, "since there is a matching device,
> > it is now its responsibility to manage the devargs we've just inserted."
> > But the matching device
On 04/02/2020 10:15, Somnath Kotur wrote:
As per the comments in this code section, "since there is a matching device,
it is now its responsibility to manage the devargs we've just inserted."
But the matching device ptr's devargs is still uninitialized or not pointing
to the newest dev_args that
As per the comments in this code section, "since there is a matching device,
it is now its responsibility to manage the devargs we've just inserted."
But the matching device ptr's devargs is still uninitialized or not pointing
to the newest dev_args that were passed as a parameter to local_dev_prob
11 matches
Mail list logo
