Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/2] net/af_xdp: remove resources when port is closed

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On 4/29/2019 11:34 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 30/04/2019 00:28, Ferruh Yigit:
>> On 4/29/2019 9:14 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 29/04/2019 19:00, Ferruh Yigit:
>>>> On 4/26/2019 6:09 AM, Xiaolong Ye wrote:
>>>>> Since 18.11, it is suggested that driver should release all its private
>>>>> resources at the dev_close routine. So all resources previously released
>>>>> in remove routine are now released at the dev_close routine, and the
>>>>> dev_close routine will be called in driver remove routine in order to
>>>>> support removing a device without closing its ports.
>>>>>
>>>>> Above behavior changes are supported by setting RTE_ETH_DEV_CLOSE_REMOVE
>>>>> flag during probe stage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Xiaolong Ye <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
>>>>
>>>> <...>
>>>>
>>>>> @@ -936,14 +940,7 @@ rte_pmd_af_xdp_remove(struct rte_vdev_device *dev)
>>>>>  	if (eth_dev == NULL)
>>>>>  		return -1;
>>>>>  
>>>>> -	internals = eth_dev->data->dev_private;
>>>>> -
>>>>> -	rte_ring_free(internals->umem->buf_ring);
>>>>> -	rte_memzone_free(internals->umem->mz);
>>>>> -	rte_free(internals->umem);
>>>>> -
>>>>> -	rte_eth_dev_release_port(eth_dev);
>>>>
>>>> I thinks we should keep 'rte_eth_dev_release_port()' in '.remove()' path,
>>>> the 'RTE_ETH_DEV_CLOSE_REMOVE' flag will take care of this in
>>>> 'rte_eth_dev_close()' but still needed in  '.remove()' path.
>>>
>>> I don't understand your comment.
>>> Calling the close function looks the right thing to do in "remove".
>>
>> No concern on calling the 'close'.
>> My comment was to keep 'rte_eth_dev_release_port()' which this patch removes.
> 
> rte_eth_dev_release_port() is called in eth_dev_close(), isn't it?

No, 'eth_dev_close()' is local 'dev_close()' ops, the one to clear driver
private resources.
I assume it is confused with 'rte_eth_dev_close()' ...

> 
>>>>> -
>>>>> +	eth_dev_close(eth_dev);
> 
> 
>