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

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

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?

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