From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>
Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com (mail-wm0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE95C1B1B2
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 14:47:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f54.google.com with SMTP id 9so14179065wme.4
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 05:47:07 -0800 (PST)
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
:user-agent; bh=eC9xrbCqCmrzO7Rr77sRBxBUbn47LtIKArFvPeuQDIQ=;
b=X39iEuacAhtS492z5s2k7HmkPz1qLZ2MNYBrIRfuccR9oOUIg3dL8UGeiAWtUN3BIw
Jbc8k9a9U6v/+v8po2MW4B1d0zVwzN/47CFT4U3pJySw8hTM7Ji42ENsWD0T2P0y8H82
M8ir28gspGptp1voxoUvJaP6jXaReY1mFtnPOm+qwkaHltSb9p2920Uo31l1vaIXKwdC
IDFFLteECrfX2XOkFZBtDo3oGa4acwVKrvmET2VQ+PoH6eNDW4yV6I+bwkoVpKmld57i
Oa8JEx4WyeDGZxs/WaLWdm9Z68EtV/QUgFWQIo/Lf6MJMa+Pk6ImcnRgZQjndb0EiLWR
QkVQ==
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:user-agent;
bh=eC9xrbCqCmrzO7Rr77sRBxBUbn47LtIKArFvPeuQDIQ=;
b=f54/QicRtXHvigENV5DhBZ0+EoebYiac5viztZOlAskuMSZcwl2TTowbZMcJYHJZNY
KT7pkoOSs4hnkkJML6xbktzsAWu/ckQvpbNO6UcuagGpAaW9lTtqO1Pl3GY6Laf2v4iF
Z3SUhrOPr3mXd/HyfVPwBFDs0uzNlY85FBwjwqVzLyIe9K4DR2wBB/jk3jC76Wvtx511
Dp5uNCwGeJw84qU+7NBFFqRh66rdLJuM3ypomVHtRA//c2tL2U5M0rGxYEaaY6kjZqQ5
NxZ2jzHAqyluAtaeKA2jbJkQ3Qx/sg9EaI6oWDs4/UwkBMWi2F058fvZV95aRI6NaQHC
k2OA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIEv5+nbMx/SRWbI1dYTjE6PMkg8naGPZWjOaCIrJWCjgp4s7N2
j09ObN3IOYvSCaZuvnTEAPKx75c+
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotbjnkwpkKShCTmt55jZFJoLLjoPtQvoe9DUVj+ppwnkU7qppvIkkLe7ZmTZhH6MUM9H7qmxw==
X-Received: by 10.28.169.151 with SMTP id s145mr8498633wme.102.1515419227278;
Mon, 08 Jan 2018 05:47:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bidouze.vm.6wind.com (host.78.145.23.62.rev.coltfrance.com.
[62.23.145.78])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r82sm9746367wme.31.2018.01.08.05.47.06
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256);
Mon, 08 Jan 2018 05:47:06 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 14:46:54 +0100
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan?= Rivet <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>
To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
Cc: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Message-ID: <20180108134654.wb7svquzhuuvvmh6@bidouze.vm.6wind.com>
References: <1513175370-16583-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com>
<1513703415-29145-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com>
<1513703415-29145-7-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com>
<20171219222131.plcfn5wqggyn5znw@bidouze.vm.6wind.com>
<HE1PR0502MB3659A32940C84B489CB82FBCD20C0@HE1PR0502MB3659.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
<20180108105739.qkyejshupojkwyv2@bidouze.vm.6wind.com>
<AM6PR0502MB3797391096C339436CB280A1D2130@AM6PR0502MB3797.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <AM6PR0502MB3797391096C339436CB280A1D2130@AM6PR0502MB3797.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/6] net/failsafe: fix removed device
handling
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 13:47:07 -0000
On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 12:55:49PM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote:
> Hi Gaetan
>
> From: Gaëtan Rivet, Monday, January 8, 2018 12:58 PM
> > Hi Matan,
> >
> > Sorry for the delay on this.
> >
>
> It's OK in spite of I need to fetch it back :)
>
> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 10:58:29AM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote:
> > > Hi Gaetan
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Gaëtan Rivet [mailto:gaetan.rivet@6wind.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 12:22 AM
> > > > To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
> > > > Cc: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> > > > <thomas@monjalon.net>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] net/failsafe: fix removed device
> > > > handling
> > > >
> > > > Hi Matan,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 05:10:15PM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote:
> > > > > There is time between the physical removal of the device until
> > > > > sub-device PMDs get a RMV interrupt. At this time DPDK PMDs and
> > > > > applications still don't know about the removal and may call
> > > > > sub-device control operation which should return an error.
> > > > >
> > > > > In previous code this error is reported to the application
> > > > > contrary to fail-safe principle that the app should not be aware of
> > device removal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Add an removal check in each relevant control command error flow
> > > > > and prevent an error report to application when the sub-device is
> > removed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: a46f8d5 ("net/failsafe: add fail-safe PMD")
> > > > > Fixes: b737a1e ("net/failsafe: support flow API")
> >
> > As stated previously, please do not include those fixes lines.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * Check if error should be reported to the user.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +static inline bool
> > > > > +fs_is_error(struct sub_device *sdev, int err) {
> > > > > + /* A device removal shouldn't be reported as an error. */
> > > > > + if (err == 0 || sdev->remove == 1 || err == -EIO)
> > > > > + return false;
> > > > > + return true;
> > > > > +}
> > > >
> > > > This is better, thanks.
> > > >
> > > > However is there a reason you did not follow the same pattern as
> > > > ethdev with eth_err? I see the two functions as similar in their
> > > > intent, making them close to each other would be clearer to a reader
> > > > being familiar with the ethdev API and that would be interested in fail-
> > safe.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think that there is a real different between eth_err function to
> > fs_is_error:
> > > ethdev uses eth_err function to adjust removal return value to be -EIO.
> > > fail-safe uses fs_is_error function to check if an error should be reported to
> > the user to save the fail-safe principle that the app should not be aware of
> > device removal - this is the main idea that also causes me to change the
> > name from fs_is_removed to fs_is_error.
> >
> > I would have preferred if it followed the same pattern as ethdev (that
> > function be used to adjust the return value, not performing a flag check).
> >
> > While better on its own, the pattern:
> >
> > if (fs_is_error(sdev, err)) {
> > ERROR("xxxx");
> > return err;
> > }
> >
> > is dangerous, as then the author is forbidden from returning err, assuming
> > err could be -EIO. He or she would be forced to return an explicit "0".
> > To be clear, here would be an easy mistake to do:
> >
> > if (fs_is_error(sdev, err)) {
> > ERROR("xxxx");
> > }
> > return err;
> >
> > And this kind of code-flow is not unusual, or even unwanted.
> > I dislike having this kind of implicit rule derived from using a helper such as
> > fs_is_error().
> >
> > The alternative
> >
> > if ((err = fs_err(sdev, err))) {
> > ERROR("xxxx");
> > return err;
> > }
> >
> > Forces the value err to be set to the correct one.
> >
> Good point, will change it.
>
> > This mistake can already be found in your patch:
> >
> > > @@ -150,7 +150,7 @@
> > > continue;
> > > local_ret = rte_flow_destroy(PORT_ID(sdev),
> > > flow->flows[i], error);
> > > - if (local_ret) {
> > > + if (fs_is_error(sdev, local_ret)) {
> > > ERROR("Failed to destroy flow on sub_device %d: %d",
> > > i, local_ret);
> > > if (ret == 0)
> >
>
> Sorry, I can't see any issue here.
>
You're right, actually the code would still be correct.
I checked again the rest of the edit, there shouldn't be any issue,
usually "0" is explicitly returned.
Still, the point stands.
> > Your environment does not include the function, but this is within
> > fs_flow_destroy (please update to include the context by the way it helps a
> > lot the review :). Afterward, line 162 ret is directly used as return value.
> >
> I don't understand what do you mean.
>
> > Also, fs_err() would need to transform rte_errno when relevant (mostly in
> > failsafe_flow.c I think).
> >
> Your suggestion is always to update rte_errno to 0 in case the error is because of removal?
>
If the error is indeed due to the device being absent, then rte_errno
should be set back to its previous value I think.
--
Gaëtan Rivet
6WIND