From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F76EA052A; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 13:39:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EFE5140F12; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 13:39:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B1D8140EB6; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 13:39:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 476E7CB4; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 07:39:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 25 Jan 2021 07:39:04 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm3; bh= 8hHDME/C/AjVaJQ49twN4Nuvkkyg43s6Yh1jMEzRH7o=; b=qpSSKf+tcy9hbYhh 2YpgV7nC59ccMLrOp7dXfySNj8AuNldPArh10E0jCd5GT+Ii1jq1FrS/OJy9+TSd FkJ+56H1TL5MdQUIvRDYRJY3iZqKM7kznuOekPDitLYyrstq47cKS3pssPOlEqmu f4x54StaRPLRKOvMqcTePVRN00NoW20WC5IQYeEQkC8hjdu/vqav6CRKx1jTy9Q1 bzKY+8WdKal5bNhyU0QA32xO+t/ca+ybFhoBZxw4vdl88oX40cWxqNvFOSrPbZlH pvrM/cC5aN+vPhugYkG+sQaiasPPE1Lg9hwiMRulgC4QCUTkNX4Jd/9GFnunfRTo OSIGeg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=8hHDME/C/AjVaJQ49twN4Nuvkkyg43s6Yh1jMEzRH 7o=; b=DY9mtI0WRyEwOSuTNSVIjaP9xxn91zuHjaS1wSgupkTZX0TABu32f0MDD +7Rd8qXgQm4KtxP3h+jWHSBQ2ScAcqs4av/5KQ8UGP+BTO5Ppjm7HCjR5wXiZzZT PlU+iyI1wqRFBCyNyqUx0qHZ390Od0OyCDU4KWbuIUYDDPJXvvsjJ0f2K1vJRr/0 xXL7lAKyQuZg7BhMWpTPHPkGVysM3G2NlmVFG440ZYU095uZWROTQU+4IzkkPe8y iLQTrntsMycPXO/8Wneuh5dbnZ//5TkWGDYv16hfEhede82gyxRngATcwJJBsS8p m2P6bLujYOyvtPNRBm7Gtu1Md6qnQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdefgdegtdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdejueei iedvffegheenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuih iivgepudenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhho nhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 767F91080066; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 07:39:02 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: dev@dpdk.org Cc: stable@dpdk.org, Anatoly Burakov , Ferruh Yigit , Liron Himi , Stephen Hemminger , Andrew Rybchenko Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 13:39:00 +0100 Message-ID: <1931144.TZLhyH61Hn@thomas> In-Reply-To: <201448393.hYmQimzCso@thomas> References: <20210122175804.772207-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <201448393.hYmQimzCso@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 1/1] ethdev: fix handling of close failure X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 25/01/2021 13:37, Thomas Monjalon: > 25/01/2021 10:13, Andrew Rybchenko: > > On 1/22/21 8:58 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > If a failure happens when closing a port, > > > it was unnecessarily failing again in the function eth_err(), > > > because of a check against HW removal cause. > > > Indeed there is a big chance the port is released at this point. > > > Given the port is in the middle (or at the end) of a close process, > > > checking the error cause by accessing the port is a non-sense. > > > The error check is replaced by a simple return in the close function. > > > > > > Bugzilla ID: 624 > > > Fixes: 8a5a0aad5d3e ("ethdev: allow close function to return an error") > > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > > > > > Reported-by: Anatoly Burakov > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon > > > > Acked-by: Andrew Rybchenko > > Applied Sorry please ignore this wrong message, patch not applied. (will be considered by Ferruh)