From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 420CCA0C40; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 17:42:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD0C640689; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 17:42:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pg1-f174.google.com (mail-pg1-f174.google.com [209.85.215.174]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 379B14067A for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 17:42:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pg1-f174.google.com with SMTP id i34so10397516pgl.9 for ; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 08:42:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=l8MWf+dB7NXdJ0BXB5UmaxiEm8PGA1T4CSwFH0Xc/C4=; b=IftxJ90RmDmIbGfCCpcpf+k/ku5CsO2sGZJnEx7IsInDTxRkjrl6u8NBtVHShkpB2d dxvmCg5xs40TLnTCtAuw/5ilgpEY0LHSJ3HsTG/bbgI7CdZchKLrv9oGRBP082Z85kAg hJDEmYpM1RxeTtq6zNaPdq7DQ5GODt/re8w9vyFpsf/fgU6umHznl7UIvhIO70P+PBOg JiAs9wWktsxV8t00FCfiS70E3ZqhzNAJherlAVJbHKCwKrMGGvZxTaQQJHDS7/D63ZSJ p1D9XY4Wh7T3zcCKY2ENr7ybZL/2eDj2PohdMqTc5KMOQ2zmdNPv8smTsI03sHxUKR26 Vdig== 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=l8MWf+dB7NXdJ0BXB5UmaxiEm8PGA1T4CSwFH0Xc/C4=; b=lyw1xdCeLTwsH3Rodf6AB/kth4vbxpAvrqgZ7Yf9sLJDaDG71uwD7nJtyv9cpPg/xF ik2kgR8Tt2aISuHeo+Ou7McPpPkxdSY14BuWtLdccYamd8O+lvXabS5ICEB9v0/Ik3UP SyWPwceUNVzf2kAaPixRwZxQ2c74LNQf+8Pl0dI5uYzRNxiTpXeMVZ6s3WCnRA3Pthau 9CEdzQhSgrCq5qLlSNH/2T9YHCxy2B3J36LiDYqTzoKsH3jo3l/X9VJqE9ysdXKVawle hSdutaZDxB0PjbtktdHrkWRmk7LofL6tN1EGpAb2G1e02An8JvEwpPG3L1+b8Suo9cqC M7Ew== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530EHbNZmbOoNNSF/UqTtjZP9OTvzObsQ3SoeS3wjne+WcEk2BTT QjSlyrTT2dl3WnLkJyys4b0Ybw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxomK3D83F5N59PK9ZNiV+7Z5Tia3bGQjPuA/1Ub8QylZCtT6kjev6BkeC+zhc5ITVVHciSIw== X-Received: by 2002:a63:3543:: with SMTP id c64mr22875440pga.403.1623166939211; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 08:42:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.local (76-14-218-44.or.wavecable.com. [76.14.218.44]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s13sm6359183pgi.36.2021.06.08.08.42.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 08 Jun 2021 08:42:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 08:42:10 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Andrew Rybchenko Cc: Thomas Monjalon , dev@dpdk.org, matan@mellanox.com, Gaetan Rivet Message-ID: <20210608084210.73d05f60@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: References: <20210315192722.35490-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <20210315192722.35490-3-stephen@networkplumber.org> <6747934.v7ilQdk43l@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] net/failsafe: fix primary/secondary mutex X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 11:00:37 +0300 Andrew Rybchenko wrote: > On 4/19/21 8:08 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > About the title, better to speak about multi-process, > > it is less confusing than primary/secondary. > > > > 15/03/2021 20:27, Stephen Hemminger: > >> Set mutex used in failsafe driver to protect when used by > >> both primary and secondary process. Without this fix, the failsafe > >> lock is not really locking when there are multiple secondary processes. > >> > >> Bugzilla ID: 662 > >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger > >> Fixes: 655fcd68c7d2 ("net/failsafe: fix hotplug races") > >> Cc: matan@mellanox.com > > > > The correct order for above lines is: > > > > Bugzilla ID: 662 > > Fixes: 655fcd68c7d2 ("net/failsafe: fix hotplug races") > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger > > > >> --- > >> --- a/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe.c > >> +++ b/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe.c > >> @@ -140,6 +140,11 @@ fs_mutex_init(struct fs_priv *priv) > >> ERROR("Cannot initiate mutex attributes - %s", strerror(ret)); > >> return ret; > >> } > >> + /* Allow mutex to protect primary/secondary */ > >> + ret = pthread_mutexattr_setpshared(&attr, PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED); > >> + if (ret) > >> + ERROR("Cannot set mutex shared - %s", strerror(ret)); > > > > Why not returning an error here? > > +1 > > I think it would be safer to return an error here. Ok but it never happens.