Re: [PATCH] net/tap: Bug fix to populate fds in secondary process

[kumaraparameshwaran rathinavel <kumaraparamesh92@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1758 bytes --]

Yes, even I was confused if it  had been the tap_intr_handle_set function.

In general the tap_dev_start should not be invoked by the secondary and
only primary should do it. I referred it to a couple of PMDs and that was
the case. Please let me know if I am missing something in my understanding.


On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 2:40 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:

> On 1/18/2022 4:39 AM, Kumara Parameshwaran wrote:
> >>   static int
> >>   tap_dev_start(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
> >>   {
> >>        int err, i;
> >>
> >> +     tap_mp_req_on_rxtx(dev);
> >> +
> >
> > As for as I understand your logic is primary sends the message to the
> secondar(y|ies),
> > so what happens first secondary is started?
> > ​In case of TAP PMD looks like there is an assumption where primary
> should be started first. There is an existing check below during the probe
> function call.
> > if (!rte_eal_primary_proc_alive(NULL)) {
> >       TAP_LOG(ERR, "Primary process is missing");
> >        return -1;
> > }
> >
> > What about secondary sends the message when they are started?
> > ​IMHO, since primary process setups the queue it should be sufficient
> for the primary processes to the send the message and secondary need not
> send anything.
> >
> > Also above functions is called by both primary and secondary, what
> happens when it is
> > called by secondary? And the logic is not clear, it can be good to add a
> process type
> > check to clarify.
> > ​Sure, these are for tap_intr_handle_set and tap_dev_start functions?
>
> I was thinking within the 'tap_dev_start()' function, for
> 'tap_mp_req_on_rxtx()' call.
>
> Not sure how 'tap_intr_handle_set()' is involved, am I missing something.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2274 bytes --]