DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Singh, Aman Deep" <aman.deep.singh@intel.com>
To: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>,
	Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
	 Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
	Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>,
	David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC V2] ethdev: fix issue that dev close in PMD calls twice
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 12:49:51 +0530
Message-ID: <4e2b5720-6da0-155b-845d-76c42b800abc@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <858dc20f-5711-f770-2c08-0a432b6ea733@huawei.com>


On 9/22/2021 9:01 AM, Huisong Li wrote:
>
> 在 2021/9/20 22:07, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
>> On 8/25/2021 10:53 AM, Huisong Li wrote:
>>> 在 2021/8/24 22:42, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
>>>> On 8/19/2021 4:45 AM, Huisong Li wrote:
>>>>> 在 2021/8/18 19:24, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
>>>>>> On 8/13/2021 9:16 AM, Huisong Li wrote:
>>>>>>> 在 2021/8/13 14:12, Thomas Monjalon 写道:
>>>>>>>> 13/08/2021 04:11, Huisong Li:
>>>>>>>>> Hi, all
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This patch can enhance the security of device uninstallation to
>>>>>>>>> eliminate dependency on user usage methods.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can you check this patch?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 在 2021/8/3 10:30, Huisong Li 写道:
>>>>>>>>>> Ethernet devices in DPDK can be released by 
>>>>>>>>>> rte_eth_dev_close() and
>>>>>>>>>> rte_dev_remove(). These APIs both call xxx_dev_close() in PMD 
>>>>>>>>>> layer
>>>>>>>>>> to uninstall hardware. However, the two APIs do not have 
>>>>>>>>>> explicit
>>>>>>>>>> invocation restrictions. In other words, at the ethdev layer, 
>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>> possible to call rte_eth_dev_close() before calling 
>>>>>>>>>> rte_dev_remove()
>>>>>>>>>> or rte_eal_hotplug_remove(). In such a bad scenario,
>>>>>>>> It is not a bad scenario.
>>>>>>>> If there is no more port for the device after calling close,
>>>>>>>> the device should be removed automatically.
>>>>>>>> Keep in mind "close" is for one port, "remove" is for the 
>>>>>>>> entire device
>>>>>>>> which can have more than one port.
>>>>>>> I know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dev_close() is for removing an eth device. And rte_dev_remove() 
>>>>>>> can be used
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for removing the rte device and all its eth devices belonging to 
>>>>>>> the rte
>>>>>>> device.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In rte_dev_remove(), "remove" is executed in primary or one of 
>>>>>>> secondary,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> all eth devices having same pci address will be closed and removed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the primary
>>>>>>>>>> process may be fine, but it may cause that xxx_dev_close() in 
>>>>>>>>>> the PMD
>>>>>>>>>> layer will be called twice in the secondary process. So this 
>>>>>>>>>> patch
>>>>>>>>>> fixes it.
>>>>>>>> If a port is closed in primary, it should be the same in 
>>>>>>>> secondary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +    /*
>>>>>>>>>> +     * The eth_dev->data->name doesn't be cleared by the 
>>>>>>>>>> secondary
>>>>>>>>>> process,
>>>>>>>>>> +     * so above "eth_dev" isn't NULL after 
>>>>>>>>>> rte_eth_dev_close() called.
>>>>>>>> This assumption is not clear. All should be closed together.
>>>>>>> However, dev_close() does not have the feature similar to 
>>>>>>> rte_dev_remove().
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Namely, it is not guaranteed that all eth devices are closed 
>>>>>>> together in
>>>>>>> ethdev
>>>>>>> layer. It depends on app or user.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the app does not close together, the operation of repeatedly
>>>>>>> uninstalling an
>>>>>>> eth device in the secondary process
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> will be triggered when dev_close() is first called by one secondary
>>>>>>> process, and
>>>>>>> then rte_dev_remove() is called.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I think it should be avoided.
>>>>>> First of all, I am not sure about calling 'rte_eth_dev_close()' or
>>>>>> 'rte_dev_remove()' from the secondary process.
>>>>>> There are explicit checks in various locations to prevent 
>>>>>> clearing resources
>>>>>> completely from secondary process.
>>>>> There's no denying that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Generally, hardware resources of eth device and shared data of the 
>>>>> primary and
>>>>> secondary process
>>>>>
>>>>> are cleared by primary, which are controled by ethdev layer or PMD 
>>>>> layer.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there may be some private data or resources of each process 
>>>>> (primary or
>>>>> secondary ), such as mp action
>>>>>
>>>>> registered by rte_mp_action_register() or others.  For these 
>>>>> resources, the
>>>>> secondary process still needs to clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> Namely, both primary and secondary processes need to prevent 
>>>>> repeated offloading
>>>>> of resources.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Calling 'rte_eth_dev_close()' or 'rte_dev_remove()' by secondary 
>>>>>> is technically
>>>>>> can be done but application needs to be extra cautious and should 
>>>>>> take extra
>>>>>> measures and synchronization to make it work.
>>>>>> Regular use-case is secondary processes do the packet processing 
>>>>>> and all
>>>>>> control
>>>>>> commands run by primary.
>>>>> You are right. We have a consensus that 'rte_eth_dev_close()' or
>>>>> 'rte_dev_remove()'
>>>>>
>>>>> can be called by primary and secondary processes.
>>>>>
>>>>> But DPDK framework cannot assume user behavior.😁
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to make it more secure and reliable for both primary and 
>>>>> secondary
>>>>> processes.
>>>>>
>>>>>> In primary, if you call 'rte_eth_dev_close()' it will clear all 
>>>>>> ethdev
>>>>>> resources
>>>>>> and further 'rte_dev_remove()' call will detect missing ethdev 
>>>>>> resources and
>>>>>> won't try to clear them again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In secondary, if you call 'rte_eth_dev_close()', it WON'T clear 
>>>>>> all resources
>>>>>> and further 'rte_dev_remove()' call (either from primary or 
>>>>>> secondary) will try
>>>>>> to clean ethdev resources again. You are trying to prevent this 
>>>>>> retry in remove
>>>>>> happening for secondary process.
>>>>> Right. However, if secondary process in PMD layer has its own 
>>>>> private resources
>>>>> to be
>>>>>
>>>>> cleared, it still need to do it by calling 'rte_eth_dev_close()' or
>>>>> 'rte_dev_remove()'.
>>>>>
>>>>>> In secondary it won't free ethdev resources anyway if you let it 
>>>>>> continue,
>>>>>> but I
>>>>>> guess here you are trying to prevent the PMD dev_close() called 
>>>>>> again. Why? Is
>>>>>> it just for optimization or does it cause unexpected behavior in 
>>>>>> the PMD?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Overall, to free resources you need to do the 
>>>>>> 'rte_eth_dev_close()' or
>>>>>> 'rte_dev_remove()' in the primary anyway. So instead of this 
>>>>>> workaround, I
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> suggest making PMD dev_close() safe to be called multiple times 
>>>>>> (if this is the
>>>>>> problem.)
>>>>> In conclusion,  primary and secondary processes in PMD layer may 
>>>>> have their own
>>>>>
>>>>> private data and resources, which need to be processed and released.
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently,  these for PMD are either handled and cleaned up in 
>>>>> dev_close() or
>>>>> remove().
>>>>>
>>>>> However, code streams in rte_dev_remove() cannot ensure that the 
>>>>> uninstallation
>>>>>
>>>>> from secondary process will not be repeated if rte_eth_dev_close() 
>>>>> is first
>>>>> called by
>>>>>
>>>>> secondary(primary is ok, plese review this patch).
>>>>>
>>>>> I think, this is the same for each PMD and is better suited to 
>>>>> doing it in
>>>>> ethdev layer.
>>>>>
>>>> This patch prevents to call dev_close() twice in the secondary 
>>>> process, is this
>>>> fixing a theoretical problem or an actual problem?
>>>>
>>>> If it is an actual problem can you please provide details, 
>>>> callstack of the
>>>> problematic case?
>>> We analyzed the code when modifying the bug and found that the 
>>> problem did exist.
>>>
>>> The ethdev layer did not guarantee the security.
>>>
>> I was wondering if there is a crash for an unexpected path, for below 
>> case the
>> primary process check in the 'hns3_dev_uninit()' should already 
>> prevent anything
>> unexpected. So I assume this is a fix for a theoretical issue.
>
> Yes. For primary process, hns3 can prevent multiple device 
> uninstallation through
>
> "adapter_state" controled by primary process.
>
> The problem of multiple device uninstallation has been prevented at 
> rte_eth_dev_pci_generic_remove()
>
> in the ethdev layer, as described in the patch.
>
> In primary process, rte_eth_dev_allocated() in 
> rte_eth_dev_pci_generic_remove() will return NULL
>
> when first calling dev_close(), and then calling rte_dev_remove(). So 
> it is ok. But the logic can not
>
> prevent the same case in secondary because secondary does not clear 
> dev->data.
>
>>
>> In secondary process, these init/uninit device is already not very 
>> safe. For
>> example, as far as I can see in secondary if you hot remove a device 
>> device and
>> hot plug a new one, new device will use wrong device data (since hot 
>> remove
>> won't clear device data, new one will continue to use it).
>
> No. If we hot remove a device in secondary, the secondary will request 
> its primary
>
> send "remove device" message to all secondaries. After all secondaries 
> are removed,
>
> the primary also removes the device and the device data will be cleared.
>
> This is the logic of rte_dev_remove().
>
>> So I am not sure about adding secondary process related checks in 
>> that area and
>> causing a false sense of security, and polluting the logic with 
>> secondary
>> specific checks.
>> Also the check you add may hit by primary process and I am worried on an
>> unexpected side affect it cause.
>>
>>
>> As said above I am not sure about this new check, but even we 
>> continue with it,
>> what about wrapping the check with secondary process check, at least 
>> to be sure
>> there won't be any side affect for primary process.
>>
> If app hot remove device in primary/secondary, the original logic is 
> still used in this interface, because of
>
> bing RTE_ETH_DEV_ATTACHED state for eth_dev. If app first calls 
> dev_close(), eth device is
>
> RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED state in primary/secondary. In this issue case, 
> this interface is still return from the
>
> original place instead of the new check.
>
> So I don't think the new check will affect the primary process. 
> Conversely, it's safer for secondary processes.
>
> Please check it again, thanks.

As this issue is specific to secondary process, can we have these change 
under a check like "if (rte_eal_process_type() != RTE_PROC_PRIMARY)"

By this we can avoid any side effect of these changes for primary 
process and also it makes code readablity easier for designers who are 
not checking secondary process changes.

>
>>> The general function of the two interfaces is as follows:
>>>
>>> rte_eth_dev_close() --> release eth device
>>>
>>> rte_dev_remove() -->   release eth device + remove and free
>>> rte_pci_device(primary andsecondary).
>>>
>>> According to the OVS application scenario, first call dev_close() 
>>> and then call
>>>
>>> remove(), which is possible.
>>>
>>> We constructed this scenario using testpmd to start the secondary 
>>> process(the
>>> multi-process
>>>
>>> patch of testpmd is being uploaded.). It is proved that the ethdev 
>>> layer cannot
>>> guarantee
>>>
>>> this security. The callstack is as follows:
>>>
>>> ************************************************************************************************************************************************** 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> gdb) set args -a 0000:7d:00.0 -l 2-3 --file-prefix=rte_lee 
>>> --proc-type=auto --
>>> -i --rxq 4 --txq 4 --num-procs=2 --proc-id=1
>>> (gdb) b hns3_dev_uninit
>>> Breakpoint 1 at 0xbca7d0: file ../drivers/net/hns3/hns3_ethdev.c, 
>>> line 7806.
>>> (gdb) b hns3_dev_close
>>> Breakpoint 2 at 0xbc6d44: file ../drivers/net/hns3/hns3_ethdev.c, 
>>> line 6189.
>>> (gdb) r
>>> Starting program: 
>>> /home/lihuisong/v500/gcov-test/dpdk/build/app/dpdk-testpmd -a
>>> 0000:7d:00.0 -l 2-3 --file-prefix=rte_lee --proc-type=auto -- -i 
>>> --rxq 4 --txq 4
>>> --num-procs=2 --proc-id=1
>>> Missing separate debuginfo for /root/lib/libnuma.so.1
>>> Try: yum --enablerepo='*debug*' install
>>> /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/ce/4eea0b0f2150f70a080bbd8835e43e78373096.debug 
>>>
>>> [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
>>> Using host libthread_db library "/lib64/libthread_db.so.1".
>>> EAL: Detected 128 lcore(s)
>>> EAL: Detected 4 NUMA nodes
>>> EAL: Auto-detected process type: SECONDARY
>>> EAL: Detected static linkage of DPDK
>>> [New Thread 0xfffff7a0ad10 (LWP 17717)]
>>> EAL: Multi-process socket 
>>> /var/run/dpdk/rte_lee/mp_socket_17714_66aa8d3a60a9
>>> [New Thread 0xfffff7209d10 (LWP 17718)]
>>> EAL: Selected IOVA mode 'VA'
>>> EAL: VFIO support initialized
>>> [New Thread 0xfffff69f8d10 (LWP 17719)]
>>> EAL: Using IOMMU type 1 (Type 1)
>>> EAL: Probe PCI driver: net_hns3 (19e5:a222) device: 0000:7d:00.0 
>>> (socket 0)
>>> [New Thread 0xfffff61f7d10 (LWP 17720)]
>>> TELEMETRY: No legacy callbacks, legacy socket not created
>>> Interactive-mode selected
>>> 0000:7d:00.0 hns3_dev_mtu_set(): Failed to set mtu, port 0 must be 
>>> stopped
>>> before configuration
>>> Failed to set MTU to 1500 for port 0
>>> testpmd: create a new mbuf pool <mb_pool_0>: n=155456, size=2176, 
>>> socket=0
>>> testpmd: preferred mempool ops selected: ring_mp_mc
>>>
>>> Warning! port-topology=paired and odd forward ports number, the last 
>>> port will
>>> pair with itself.
>>>
>>> Configuring Port 0 (socket 0)
>>> Port 0: 00:18:2D:00:00:9E
>>> Checking link statuses...
>>> Done
>>> testpmd> port close 0
>>> Closing ports...
>>>
>>> Breakpoint 2, hns3_dev_close (eth_dev=0x21cdb80 <rte_eth_devices>)
>>>      at ../drivers/net/hns3/hns3_ethdev.c:6189
>>> 6189        struct hns3_adapter *hns = eth_dev->data->dev_private;
>>> Missing separate debuginfos, use: debuginfo-install 
>>> glibc-2.17-260.el7.aarch64
>>> libpcap-1.5.3-11.el7.aarch64 openssl-libs-1.0.2k-16.el7.aarch64
>>> zlib-1.2.7-18.el7.aarch64
>>> (gdb) bt
>>> #0  hns3_dev_close (eth_dev=0x21cdb80 <rte_eth_devices>) at
>>> ../drivers/net/hns3/hns3_ethdev.c:6189
>>> #1  0x0000000000742eac in rte_eth_dev_close (port_id=0) at
>>> ../lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c:1870
>>> #2  0x0000000000542a8c in close_port (pid=0) at 
>>> ../app/test-pmd/testpmd.c:2895
>>> #3  0x00000000004df82c in cmd_operate_specific_port_parsed
>>> (parsed_result=0xffffffffb0f0,
>>>      cl=0x2475080, data=0x0) at ../app/test-pmd/cmdline.c:1272
>>> #4  0x0000000000738ce4 in cmdline_parse (cl=0x2475080, buf=0x24750c8 
>>> "port close
>>> 0\n")
>>>      at ../lib/cmdline/cmdline_parse.c:290
>>> #5  0x0000000000736b7c in cmdline_valid_buffer (rdl=0x2475090, 
>>> buf=0x24750c8
>>> "port close 0\n",
>>>      size=14) at ../lib/cmdline/cmdline.c:26
>>> #6  0x000000000073c078 in rdline_char_in (rdl=0x2475090, c=10 '\n')
>>>      at ../lib/cmdline/cmdline_rdline.c:421
>>> #7  0x0000000000736fcc in cmdline_in (cl=0x2475080, buf=0xfffffffff25f
>>> "\n\200\362\377\377\377\377",
>>>      size=1) at ../lib/cmdline/cmdline.c:149
>>> #8  0x0000000000737270 in cmdline_interact (cl=0x2475080) at
>>> ../lib/cmdline/cmdline.c:223
>>> #9  0x00000000004f0ccc in prompt () at ../app/test-pmd/cmdline.c:17882
>>> #10 0x0000000000545528 in main (argc=8, argv=0xfffffffff470) at
>>> ../app/test-pmd/testpmd.c:3998
>>> (gdb) c
>>> Continuing.
>>> Port 0 is closed
>>> Done
>>> testpmd> device detach 0000:7d:00.0
>>> Removing a device...
>>> [Switching to Thread 0xfffff7a0ad10 (LWP 17717)]
>>>
>>> Breakpoint 1, hns3_dev_uninit (eth_dev=0x21cdb80 <rte_eth_devices>)
>>>      at ../drivers/net/hns3/hns3_ethdev.c:7806
>>> 7806        struct hns3_adapter *hns = eth_dev->data->dev_private;
>>> (gdb) bt
>>> #0  hns3_dev_uninit (eth_dev=0x21cdb80 <rte_eth_devices>) at
>>> ../drivers/net/hns3/hns3_ethdev.c:7806
>>> #1  0x0000000000bb8668 in rte_eth_dev_pci_generic_remove 
>>> (pci_dev=0x247a600,
>>>      dev_uninit=0xbca7c4 <hns3_dev_uninit>) at 
>>> ../lib/ethdev/ethdev_pci.h:155
>>> #2  0x0000000000bca89c in eth_hns3_pci_remove (pci_dev=0x247a600)
>>>      at ../drivers/net/hns3/hns3_ethdev.c:7833
>>> #3  0x00000000007e85f4 in rte_pci_detach_dev (dev=0x247a600) at
>>> ../drivers/bus/pci/pci_common.c:287
>>> #4  0x00000000007e8f14 in pci_unplug (dev=0x247a610) at
>>> ../drivers/bus/pci/pci_common.c:570
>>> #5  0x0000000000775678 in local_dev_remove (dev=0x247a610) at
>>> ../lib/eal/common/eal_common_dev.c:319
>>> #6  0x000000000078f114 in __handle_primary_request 
>>> (param=0xfffff00008c0)
>>>      at ../lib/eal/common/hotplug_mp.c:284
>>> #7  0x000000000079ebf4 in eal_alarm_callback (arg=0x0) at
>>> ../lib/eal/linux/eal_alarm.c:92
>>> #8  0x00000000007a3f30 in eal_intr_process_interrupts 
>>> (events=0xfffff7a0a3e0,
>>> nfds=1)
>>>      at ../lib/eal/linux/eal_interrupts.c:998
>>> #9  0x00000000007a4224 in eal_intr_handle_interrupts (pfd=10, 
>>> totalfds=2)
>>>      at ../lib/eal/linux/eal_interrupts.c:1071
>>> #10 0x00000000007a442c in eal_intr_thread_main (arg=0x0) at
>>> ../lib/eal/linux/eal_interrupts.c:1142
>>> #11 0x0000000000789388 in ctrl_thread_init (arg=0x246ef40)
>>>      at ../lib/eal/common/eal_common_thread.c:202
>>> #12 0x0000fffff7bf3c48 in start_thread () from /lib64/libpthread.so.0
>>> #13 0x0000fffff7b45600 in thread_start () from /lib64/libc.so.6
>>>
>>> ************************************************************************************************************************************************** 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Note: above log is from the secondary process.
>>>
>>>>>> And again, please re-consider calling 'rte_eth_dev_close()' or
>>>>>> 'rte_dev_remove()' from the secondary process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +     * Namely, whether "eth_dev" is NULL cannot be used to 
>>>>>>>>>> determine
>>>>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>>>>> +     * an ethdev port has been released.
>>>>>>>>>> +     * For both primary process and secondary process, 
>>>>>>>>>> eth_dev->state is
>>>>>>>>>> +     * RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED, which means the ethdev port has 
>>>>>>>>>> been released.
>>>>>>>>>> +     */
>>>>>>>>>> +    if (eth_dev->state == RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED) {
>>>>>>>>>> +        RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(INFO, "The ethdev port has been 
>>>>>>>>>> released.");
>>>>>>>>>> +        return 0;
>>>>>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>> .
>>>> .
>> .

  reply	other threads:[~2021-09-28  7:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-02 12:46 [dpdk-dev] [RFC V1] ethdev: fix the issue that dev uninit may be called twice Huisong Li
2021-08-03  2:30 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC V2] ethdev: fix issue that dev close in PMD calls twice Huisong Li
2021-08-13  2:11   ` Huisong Li
2021-08-13  6:12     ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-08-13  8:16       ` Huisong Li
2021-08-18 11:24         ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-08-19  3:45           ` Huisong Li
2021-08-24 14:42             ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-08-25  9:53               ` Huisong Li
2021-09-04  1:23                 ` Huisong Li
2021-09-18  3:31                 ` Huisong Li
2021-09-20 14:07                 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-09-22  3:31                   ` Huisong Li
2021-09-28  7:19                     ` Singh, Aman Deep [this message]
2021-09-30 10:54                       ` Huisong Li
2021-09-30 11:01                         ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-10-08  6:13                           ` lihuisong (C)
2021-08-18  9:47 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC V1] ethdev: fix the issue that dev uninit may be called twice Singh, Aman Deep
2021-08-24  2:10   ` Huisong Li
2021-10-08  8:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: fix eth device released repeatedly Huisong Li
2021-10-08 10:23   ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-10-09  1:29     ` lihuisong (C)
2021-10-12 11:39 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH V2] " Huisong Li
2021-10-12 15:33   ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-10-14  3:50     ` lihuisong (C)
2021-10-14 12:32     ` lihuisong (C)
2021-10-14 12:50       ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-10-15  3:03         ` lihuisong (C)
2021-10-15  3:44 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH V3] " Huisong Li
2021-10-19 13:09   ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-10-21  2:31     ` lihuisong (C)
2021-10-21  2:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH V4] " Huisong Li
2021-10-21 21:19   ` Ferruh Yigit

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4e2b5720-6da0-155b-845d-76c42b800abc@intel.com \
    --to=aman.deep.singh@intel.com \
    --cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
    --cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=lihuisong@huawei.com \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

DPDK patches and discussions

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
		dev@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index dev

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git