From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com (mail-wm0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CEF5100F for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:28:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f54.google.com with SMTP id i145so16377567wmf.1 for ; Tue, 05 Sep 2017 02:28:13 -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:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=Pygp82SIpjiicqc0vIDFcrcL/oJPepcilnE5HWUAyFw=; b=yLFNOP+1tVcsgJW72tXfZXOji8zrk3eIbJVSwPejSaJXgQCE9pSbjsKgAt3AZLjv0u o6yHTjmleXfbGUoonvFWUvRLe4ugxhUCAImEgw9Dkd5GeVtbNcViXAbQksRNIhaEo8Hf wmX+3rHJzsP2kWUf2yFoM2mHBMrVg8cyNpsQ+mMmpgwv+fULLDpFchUoo+Ogzq28fQGe iYZJ1n3TZDun55iTWeKVZXH4DtdDV50FJ7Xb7nOnY0nL/6T5zIuGWPVun6ZFvuaO76BJ qwD/QZTju18G6SKrqRAxus4yyfbftR4UpEm8XnhO76rlhr6hrghrI0Oy9UOFlykAy0h3 EpDA== 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:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=Pygp82SIpjiicqc0vIDFcrcL/oJPepcilnE5HWUAyFw=; b=C8XDzGbwqMs71/JA/MsjMeN4feI67znRAeJx7Mbqor8KdRkhhjuW8ERFtjEOaagGEz pNRpOYRIA6bU1vhmHFnTF8TZlJlIY53bo4kKovkKI9wMq7JZ4KlVJw27NLjktfBxIbeJ kwg9ZaPZlQzzwh5kZ/YeejawEJ25mYVj8vtnOSijsYu5E2P8NuakQuzVIJ1cKNkI2XUO B/7KPMe7y/4IlPMi6Eh/IaBNTTRJXgU3BhvwcmyFgLvsBwJ2/y+AbsUFmpVbmTPiiII4 aGU5KSOy9sEbDO5V3ecCzm9nE+AS0lcsN/nGfVZu7a7rlcxXGSvd7GwkWOwZ9WEcAXaK uROA== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUi0O3s4IWUzBUtc/lUJU/yie3bp4Qt+ociF+aTUhJIPPVIOMD1A OHliYjZuVO3a9Tgh2uU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb7GbeIKUjwQ8azdP3c9wnA98zZ3U4C2tIGke7zpaE3M3vQHIm7TtogO+iz/25Y1weYwOdmD5Q== X-Received: by 10.28.217.85 with SMTP id q82mr1861416wmg.89.1504603693156; Tue, 05 Sep 2017 02:28:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 6wind.com (host.78.145.23.62.rev.coltfrance.com. [62.23.145.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f10sm174844wrg.20.2017.09.05.02.28.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Sep 2017 02:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:28:02 +0200 From: Adrien Mazarguil To: Matan Azrad Cc: =?utf-8?B?TsOpbGlv?= Laranjeiro , "dev@dpdk.org" Message-ID: <20170905092802.GA4301@6wind.com> References: <20170904124943.2pep4kbglu4q5qg4@localhost> <1504533353-38337-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com> <20170904153308.GY4301@6wind.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] net/mlx5: support device removal event 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: Tue, 05 Sep 2017 09:28:13 -0000 Hi Matan, On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 05:52:55PM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote: > Hi Adrien, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com] > > Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 6:33 PM > > To: Matan Azrad > > Cc: Nélio Laranjeiro ; dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] net/mlx5: support device removal event > > > > Hi Matan, > > > > One comment I have is, while this patch adds support for RMV, it also silently > > addresses a bug (see large comment you added to > > priv_link_status_update()). > > > > This should be split in two commits, with the fix part coming first and CC > > stable@dpdk.org, and a second commit adding RMV support proper. > > > > Actually, the mlx4 bug was not appeared in the mlx5 previous code, > Probably because the RMV interrupt was not implemented in mlx5 before this patch. Good point, no RMV could occur before it is implemented, however a dedicated commit for the fix itself (i.e. alarm callback not supposed to end up calling ibv_get_async_event()) might better explain the logic behind these changes. What I mean is, if there was no problem, you wouldn't need to make priv_link_status_update() a separate function, right? > The big comment just explains the link inconsistent issue and was added > here since Nelio and I think the new function, priv_link_status_update(), > justifies this comment for future review. I understand, this could also have been part of the commit log of the dedicated commit. Thanks. -- Adrien Mazarguil 6WIND