From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
Received: from dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com
[148.163.129.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC1F03195
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 12:01:33 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Proofpoint Essentials engine
Received: from webmail.solarflare.com (uk.solarflare.com [193.34.186.16])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (Proofpoint Essentials ESMTP Server) with ESMTPS id
9A294B40067; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 10:01:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.38.17] (91.220.146.112) by ukex01.SolarFlarecom.com
(10.17.10.4) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.25; Mon, 25 Jun
2018 11:01:24 +0100
To: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>, <thomas@monjalon.net>,
<anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
CC: <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, <dev@dpdk.org>,
<bruce.richardson@intel.com>, <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
<benjamin.h.shelton@intel.com>, <narender.vangati@intel.com>
References: <20180607123849.14439-1-qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
<20180625071745.16810-1-qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
<20180625071745.16810-9-qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
Message-ID: <735a0339-577c-fc26-386d-aba15b61f04c@solarflare.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 13:01:20 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180625071745.16810-9-qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Originating-IP: [91.220.146.112]
X-ClientProxiedBy: ocex03.SolarFlarecom.com (10.20.40.36) To
ukex01.SolarFlarecom.com (10.17.10.4)
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-11.0.0.1191-8.100.1062-23928.003
X-TM-AS-Result: No--15.169800-0.000000-31
X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: Yes
X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No
X-MDID: 1529920892-txNs7EI8NZim
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 08/23] net/i40e: enable port detach on
secondary process
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://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 10:01:34 -0000
On 06/25/2018 10:17 AM, Qi Zhang wrote:
> Previously, detach port on secondary process will mess primary
> process and cause same device can't be attached again, by take
> advantage of rte_eth_release_port_private, we can support this
> with minor change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c | 2 ++
> drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c | 9 +++++++++
> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c
> index 13c5d3296..7d1f98422 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c
> @@ -678,6 +678,8 @@ static int eth_i40e_pci_remove(struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev)
> if (!ethdev)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> + if (rte_eal_process_type() != RTE_PROC_PRIMARY)
> + return rte_eth_dev_release_port_private(ethdev);
>
> if (ethdev->data->dev_flags & RTE_ETH_DEV_REPRESENTOR)
> return rte_eth_dev_destroy(ethdev, i40e_vf_representor_uninit);
> diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c
> index 804e44530..fc6f079d5 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c
> @@ -1500,6 +1500,15 @@ static int eth_i40evf_pci_probe(struct rte_pci_driver *pci_drv __rte_unused,
>
> static int eth_i40evf_pci_remove(struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev)
> {
> + struct rte_eth_dev *ethdev;
> + ethdev = rte_eth_dev_allocated(pci_dev->device.name);
Above two lines looks strange. Is alignment incorrect?
> +
> + if (!ethdev)
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + if (rte_eal_process_type() != RTE_PROC_PRIMARY)
> + return rte_eth_dev_release_port_private(ethdev);
> +
These 9 lines are duplicated in 5 changeset (this one and 4 following).
Shouldn't it be done in rte_eth_dev_pci_generic_remove()?
> return rte_eth_dev_pci_generic_remove(pci_dev, i40evf_dev_uninit);
> }