From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C5FB2C6E for ; Tue, 3 May 2016 13:20:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 May 2016 04:20:16 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,572,1455004800"; d="scan'208";a="967605359" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.220.29]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 03 May 2016 04:20:14 -0700 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 03 May 2016 12:20:13 +0025 Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 12:20:13 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: Alejandro Lucero Cc: dev Message-ID: <20160503112012.GD20328@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <1461672855-44715-1-git-send-email-alejandro.lucero@netronome.com> <20160503110148.GC20328@bricha3-MOBL3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] nfp: avoiding concurrency when hardware reconfig X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 11:20:17 -0000 On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 12:14:26PM +0100, Alejandro Lucero wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > Sorry about this. I sent a v2 for this patch but not in the same thread: > > http://www.dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-April/037996.html > Ok, I see it in patchwork now, thanks. When sending a v2, please keep the mails threaded, and please also update the original patch submission in patchwork to "superceded" so that it drops off the list of patches for consideration in DPDK. [That way at least if you forget one, the other will help hint to committers that they are not looking at the latest version. :-)] /Bruce > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Bruce Richardson < > bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 01:14:15PM +0100, Alejandro Lucero wrote: > > > Some apps calling some functions from different threads at the > > > same time could lead to reconfig problems. Reconfig mechanism is > > > based on a hardware queue where incrementing a counter signals the > > > firmware to do the reconfig. If there are two increments before the > > > first one has been processed the firmware will stop and a device > > > reset is necessary. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero > > > --- > > > drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c | 8 ++++++++ > > > drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net_pmd.h | 1 + > > > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c b/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c > > > index bc0a3d8..ba0ee04 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c > > > +++ b/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c > > > @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ > > > #include "nfp_net_pmd.h" > > > #include "nfp_net_logs.h" > > > #include "nfp_net_ctrl.h" > > > +#include > > > > Hi Alejandro, > > > > I think this header addition is in the wrong place in the code. When I > > apply > > this patch to next-net and try a recompile I get the error: > > > > CC nfp_net.o > > In file included from > > /home/bruce/next-net/dpdk-next-net/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c:58:0: > > /home/bruce/next-net/dpdk-next-net/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net_pmd.h:409:2: > > error: unknown type name ‘rte_spinlock_t’ > > rte_spinlock_t reconfig_lock; > > ^ > > > > You either need to put the spinlock include before the nfp_net_pmd.h > > include > > or, perhaps better, put the spinlock include inside the nfp_net_pmd header > > file > > since that is where the spinlock variable is being defined. > > > > /Bruce > > > >