From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05BB62BE9 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:31:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Jan 2017 02:31:53 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,274,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="925597594" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Jan 2017 02:31:52 -0800 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:34:17 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Thomas Monjalon , Remy Horton Message-ID: <20170123103417.GB10293@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1484899493-11051-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <6e706e07-455f-de57-4f85-eb4e506528f1@intel.com> <4d897cf9-f1f4-d924-10cd-63e95b12b411@intel.com> <20170122024529.GZ10293@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <3451afa6-12fb-dc65-f379-873facc0301c@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3451afa6-12fb-dc65-f379-873facc0301c@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: fix wrong memset X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:31:55 -0000 On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 09:41:35AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 1/22/2017 2:45 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 03:27:43PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > >> On 1/20/2017 11:21 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > >>> On 1/20/2017 8:04 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > >>>> Fix an silly error by auto-complete while managing the merge conflicts. > >>>> It's the eth_dev_data (but not eth_dev) entry should be memset. > >>>> > >>>> Fixes: d948f596fee2 ("ethdev: fix port data mismatched in multiple process model") > >>>> > >>>> Reported-by: Ferruh Yigit > >>>> Signed-off-by: Yuanhan Liu > >>>> --- > >>>> lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 2 +- > >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > >>>> index 4790faf..61f44e2 100644 > >>>> --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > >>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > >>>> @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ struct rte_eth_dev * > >>>> return NULL; > >>>> } > >>>> > >>>> - memset(&rte_eth_devices[port_id], 0, sizeof(*eth_dev->data)); > >>>> + memset(&rte_eth_dev_data[port_id], 0, sizeof(struct rte_eth_dev_data)); > >>> > >>> Not directly related to the this issue, but, after fix, this may have > >>> issues with secondary process. > >>> > >>> There were patches sent to fix this. > >> > >> I mean this one: > >> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-January/054422.html > > > > d948f596fee2 ("ethdev: fix port data mismatched in multiple process > > model") should have fixed it. > > Think about case, where secondary process uses a virtual PMD, which does > a rte_eth_dev_allocate() call, shouldn't this corrupt primary process > device data? Yes, it may. However, I doubt that's the typical usage. Besides that, most of virtual PMDs don't support Multipleprocess: git grep shows pcap is the only one that does claim Multipleprocess is supported. --yliu