Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 2/3] net/virtio: rationalize queue flushing

[Yuanhan Liu <yliu@fridaylinux.org>]

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 02:55:44PM +0100, Olivier Matz wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:26:09PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > Hi Oliver,
> > 
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:07:32AM +0100, Olivier Matz wrote:
> > > Rationalize the function virtio_dev_free_mbufs():
> > > 
> > > - skip NULL vqs instead of crashing: this is required for the
> > >   next commit
> > > - use the same kind of loop than in virtio_free_queues()
> > > - also flush mbufs from the control queue (this is useless yet)
> > 
> > Could we just do "nr_vq = virtio_get_nr_vq(hw) - 1" with a comment that
> > CQ is excluded, for skipping the CQ?
> 
> Is "nr_vq = virtio_get_nr_vq(hw) - 1" always valid?
> Shouldn't we do this check?
>   if (vtpci_with_feature(hw, VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_VQ))
> 
> Instead, I suggest this:
> 
> 		queue_type = virtio_get_queue_type(hw, i);
> 		if (queue_type == VTNET_RQ)
> 			type = "rxq";
> 		else if (queue_type == VTNET_TQ)
> 			type = "txq";
> 		else
> -			type = "cq";
> +			continue;

Yes, this is better.

> 
> > > - factorize common code between rxq, txq, cq
> > > 
> > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > 
> > Could you split the patch two 2:
> > 
> > - one for fixing the crash (skip the NULL vqs). We only need this one
> >   for stable release.
> > - another one for the refactoring
> 
> Yes, do you want them all in the same patchset?

I think it's okay.

Thanks.

	--yliu