From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BE78108F for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:30:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2017 00:30:02 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,277,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="56534986" Received: from rhorton-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [163.33.230.192]) ([163.33.230.192]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Jan 2017 00:30:00 -0800 To: Yuanhan Liu , Ferruh Yigit References: <1484899493-11051-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <6e706e07-455f-de57-4f85-eb4e506528f1@intel.com> <4d897cf9-f1f4-d924-10cd-63e95b12b411@intel.com> <20170122024529.GZ10293@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <3451afa6-12fb-dc65-f379-873facc0301c@intel.com> <20170123103417.GB10293@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <53a23156-dcb9-b41f-c27c-5bd13d5874f6@intel.com> <20170123112445.GE10293@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <90752e37-444b-e2bf-6d4b-1bf2eda38deb@intel.com> <20170123114050.GF10293@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <20170123115610.GG10293@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Thomas Monjalon From: Remy Horton Organization: Intel Shannon Limited Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:29:59 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170123115610.GG10293@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: fix wrong memset X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:30:04 -0000 On 23/01/2017 11:56, Yuanhan Liu wrote: [..] >>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-January/054422.html >> >> Yes, it should fix that issue. > > Well, few more thoughts: it may fix the crash issue Remy saw, but it > looks like more a workaround to me. Basically, if primary and secondary > shares a same port id, they should point to same device. Otherwise, > primary process may use eth_dev->data for a device A, while the > secondary process may use it for another device, as you said, it > could be a vdev. > > In such case, there is no way we could continue safely. That said, > the given patch avoids the total reset of eth_dev->data, while it > continues reset the eth_dev->data->name, which is wrong. I did wonder whether 7f95f78a8aea ought to be rolled back rather than the memset being made process-conditional. You going to be fixing the issue in your own patch? >> One question: do Remy or you regularly >> run some multiple process test cases (and with vdev both in primary >> and secondary process)? Not aware of there being any multiproc-related unit tests. ..Remy