From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com (mail-wm0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87E361B3D5 for ; Wed, 9 May 2018 15:30:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f52.google.com with SMTP id y189-v6so9654920wmc.3 for ; Wed, 09 May 2018 06:30:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=bviDlzEXuoH63rj8NSStW4P8sjtl9qOSIAnFKOE/1gY=; b=Fy2YkRin1jh8hZtdDl0a96MYYqVXCUzNGhJFVE1l5Fes85JM3xAD0ii3tzgRYSjaEg 5UE1ahmcHl9cdaRttgO064rdMsuk1d8mvh1ggLNnW2jFMu3h7gpcsDsmxfgutjl4ueEB cSEiUGIYG//34pXeRrY76pZjFPgQyZzuEINzo4bK8OO2eiRMD6veueM4aLS738TVksng 3uos36Qk17049mcadaDINNsgpJ4J5osd3Me2Zvbts/hfM9230b/0DPDdgEXNw4Kwf6jP EuauhgB8FIT+k0MwPwRwbv6n3zrC/oTXvov1aGuY7KFB8G6FSuVfhzj6fK4L9jDePCv3 DgWw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=bviDlzEXuoH63rj8NSStW4P8sjtl9qOSIAnFKOE/1gY=; b=D4miHhrKAgw24NOcNeUOjidURhdQgkxQc1wBmNzFtQBMLu42Zlk4KQxBOxLEziCIki meQyFhQ/eUzQip2I3L18NakhRchLevHwDTwdInf+PKkDf3ZR7sXtD8WRIb1vGB4Xylcs 6zqIeT6S1GsBMTr0mgkbz3ozQyiDN9SCwHueDIpyEuBrabxGwQgTuUfZSlXMVvzv9eza 7hpz3gAd/kp1BsGhjo1Q02ajEVLEpZFavWU6/8RGUemGwLKEzHPOyhqEdYVS8fgGKXLJ X8IZRLwAooLFVJZmQGYbkn3GieTECr2dLgtr9Q92S1o29qKUGdVDKiH2sx5uc4+UwYg1 tdPA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tAI2rZtpnFb+XmrrjWkoRP7tYapGsdzABMHXdzk2oOEfXKyQrD+ 4bHQwYg+spfYxk3nuGRhxZjVPP+v X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZor9mpoecuZ65pm8WjVn/lMDRsWi7RGywg8ZWpAwvctZNQC+yu3CgGj1RbsebUe7gGFeZcjUg== X-Received: by 10.28.0.206 with SMTP id 197mr5464108wma.118.1525872629174; Wed, 09 May 2018 06:30:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bidouze.vm.6wind.com (host.78.145.23.62.rev.coltfrance.com. [62.23.145.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w6-v6sm31714053wra.16.2018.05.09.06.30.28 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 09 May 2018 06:30:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 15:30:13 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan?= Rivet To: Matan Azrad Cc: Thomas Monjalon , "dev@dpdk.org" , "stable@dpdk.org" Message-ID: <20180509133013.yxy66njakty2g7y2@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> References: <20180509094337.26112-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <20180509094337.26112-11-thomas@monjalon.net> <20180509124123.un67tmsh75kxwrir@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 10/11] net/failsafe: fix sub-device ownership race X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 13:30:29 -0000 On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 01:01:58PM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote: > Hi Gaetan > > Regarding backporting. > This version should be bacported for 18.02.1. > There we have the new event. > Then the fixline should probably reflect this instead. Targetting the initial failsafe release won't work. This patch also relies on probing_finish() being introduced, so I guess the plan is to backport the whole series in 18.02.1? If so, I think the whole series should target the same commit id within this release, maybe the introduction of ownership or RTE_ETH_EVENT_NEW. In any case, I think I recall being told to leave this to stable maintainers to deal with. However, I do not see the benefit of having a fixline if the information is meant to be discarded for someone to do the work again. > Regarding uint32 > The maximum port id number can be 0xffff. > In this case the loop will be infinite if we use uint16 to iterate over all the ports. If RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS is set to 0xffff, an array rte_eth_devices[0xffff] would be defined statically, and I think other issues would arise before our being stuck in an infinite loop? In any case, if this had to be fixed, then there should be a BUILD_BUG_ON RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS being 0xffff, in the relevant part of librte_ethdev, instead of relying on librte_ethdev users skirting shortfalls of the library. Anyone iterating on port IDs should expect the port_id type to be sufficient to hold this information. -- Gaëtan Rivet 6WIND