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

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

On 4/30/2019 3:06 AM, Ye Xiaolong wrote:
> Hi, Ferruh
> 
> On 04/29, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> remove() would call eth_dev_close which includes the rte_eth_dev_release_port().

'eth_dev_close()' doesn't call the 'rte_eth_dev_release_port()', and it
shouldn't really, am I missing something?

> 
> Thanks,
> Xiaolong
> 
>>> -
>>> +	eth_dev_close(eth_dev);
>>>  
>>>  	return 0;
>>>  }
>>>
>>