From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com (mail-wm0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0DFA2BB9 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:13:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id m7so36991317wmg.0 for ; Thu, 08 Jun 2017 03:13:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=stasMtH4u++Qe7pGlr0IZE6kcZPYd0JTxLNJG8brYeA=; b=NnIqXBeF0n/JV7nb4sBMkfRVzLPuFwpbg2aBR1CLySOPZkDbl7SNlPaSuPd6xPFTo1 fo//g/F2Ccr4C9jwKdTajT1Z2TTUJ3MjQES913l1+fbKf+cRYYsFGDytDbokjsK+Kpyw v6w2Je12T3pJ8075dv5U+WsnnTipiR7OIl4pwtNUFCvyyE9VJqDbC6nMiURdCzvgI/Ou YMAQv93WzzePZMbGGm2y9D0VLOQBHI88Be5fHpqTNsh9/eXSIKgI7vIOaAoc+Ry+t6hQ uJdtyO2C6RO9SfAxDAZ+cFjbdOFdcAXTO5pexA7i/uvRw+/SCa+y9fawz9AR0k/ySzoe Et+w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=stasMtH4u++Qe7pGlr0IZE6kcZPYd0JTxLNJG8brYeA=; b=TWdBs/rYHsUInC7Os24tVk6JE/mJyicUzybDAqYHAK7JIZJes97ApHdtvKpjvSrLAP DJcDLBvb4JmQHjqYHhm/26ycUsk/Ku0ADLP+298oS9m3rA2fCOA50NB+Z3iI7IDxdyd4 tRE82iB6mqquAo7dZVDkK9HFVXg7kta+lSl6cMpx6AiJhmMa9ySA5wTVPEQKDJ+kW6bZ cTR/9QC9ej2aihc0OGGoHUrvnXH/AAtT7GrfRIKfFETFEdlsvRWGcnNxrWG7kh83R07h ErfkQYO9B/nZG6M+xmJV1H/3lEmsNjxI5wU2nLl3/vvP4t5WE5LzTo4I0e9JNxMUiDBc GX5g== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDHQLQ2rdmiMnD9jC+CrJsbVIo3kFVeAW3CWm+kqRSbE/sZldqQ gQSGdAsfXtK7LeRKY+U= X-Received: by 10.28.232.8 with SMTP id f8mr2763383wmh.51.1496916830378; Thu, 08 Jun 2017 03:13:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from platinum (2a01cb0c03c651000226b0fffeed02fc.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr. [2a01:cb0c:3c6:5100:226:b0ff:feed:2fc]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n184sm3621294wmd.32.2017.06.08.03.13.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 08 Jun 2017 03:13:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:13:48 +0200 From: Olivier Matz To: Bruce Richardson Cc: helin.zhang@intel.com, jingjing.wu@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20170608121348.5c2f538a@platinum> In-Reply-To: <20170608100154.GA56168@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20170608112917.22fb51eb@platinum> <20170608100154.GA56168@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] i40e: pci probe fails when using one bogus sfp 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: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 10:13:51 -0000 On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 11:01:54 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 11:29:17AM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: > > Hi, > > > > One of our customers encounters an issue with dpdk when there > > is a bogus SFP on one of the ports. The following message is > > reported: > > > > PMD: eth_i40e_dev_init(): Failed to sync phy type: -95 > > > > (note: 95 is EOPNOTSUPP/ENOTSUP) > > > > Unfortunately I cannot reproduce the issue to give more details, > > but the hypothesis is that it fails in i40e_dev_sync_phy_type(). > > It could be related to that patch: > > > > http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/?id=edfb226f69bf > > > > To me, the expected behavior should be: > > - pci probe is succesful > > - the initialization of the port with faulty SFP fails > > - the initialization of the other ports is succesful > > > > Do you have any comment or idea to fix this issue? > > > And what is the current behaviour you are seeing? The whole PCI probe is > terminating after the failure on the error port? Yes, the probe is terminating > Can that one problem > port not just be blacklisted, since it's presumably unusable anyway? This would imply the user (or the manager program) that launches the application to parse the logs to detect which port fails and update the configuration accordingly. I think it would be better to return an error at port initialization, so that the application can takes its dispositions directly. We could even imagine that the port could be reenabled later once the SFP is changed, without restarting the application. Olivier