From: "Gaëtan Rivet" <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>
To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/failsafe: fix tx sub device deactivating
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:51:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170816125151.GM8124@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DB6PR0502MB3048515493B9CF31E65BE85CD2820@DB6PR0502MB3048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 09:02:31AM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote:
> Hi Gaetan
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gaëtan Rivet [mailto:gaetan.rivet@6wind.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 11:47 AM
> > To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; stable@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/failsafe: fix tx sub device deactivating
> >
> > Hi Matan,
> >
> > Thanks for spotting this, a few nits below.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 09:59:19AM +0300, Matan Azrad wrote:
> > > The corrupted code couldn't recognize that all sub devices were not
> > > ready for tx traffic when failsafe PMD was trying to switch device
> > > because of an unreachable condition using.
> > >
> > > Hence, the current tx sub device variable was not updated correctly.
> > >
> > > The fix removed the unreachable condition and adds condition in the
> > > right place to handle non tx device ready scenario.
> > >
> >
> > It should be reworded as
> >
> > Make the condition reachable by moving it in the right place to
> > handle the scenario when no TX device is ready.
> >
> > If the condition is removed and then added, I find it clearer to say that it was
> > moved.
>
> But the two conditions are different,
> The old condition can't handle the scenario we want.
>
Yes you're right, but the commit log should still be written in the
present tense:
Remove the unreachable branch and add one in the right place respecting
the original intent.
Or something like it :)
> >
> > > Fixes: ebea83f899d8 ("net/failsafe: add plug-in support")
> > > Fixes: 598fb8aec6f6 ("net/failsafe: support device removal")
> > >
> >
> > The root commit introducing the issue is the first one, but this fix only applies
> > to the second.
> > So I don't know which commit is actually fixed by this, but I find peculiar to
> > have two commits targeted by a fix.
> >
> > In doubt, probably leave both, but maybe someone has a better idea about
> > it?
>
> I also thought about it, and found the two are necessary for future review.
>
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
> > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >
> > The Cc: stable line should immediately follow the Fixes: line.
> >
>
> Will be fixed.
>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_private.h | 7 ++++---
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Hi Gaetan
> > > I didn't find any real scenario which cause to problematic behavior
> > > because of the previous code.
> > > But it may be.
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_private.h
> > > b/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_private.h
> > > index 0361cf4..dc97aec 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_private.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_private.h
> > > @@ -346,9 +346,10 @@ fs_switch_dev(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> > > PRIV(dev)->subs_tx = i;
> > > break;
> > > }
> > > - } else if (txd && txd->state < req_state) {
> > > - DEBUG("No device ready, deactivating tx_dev");
> > > - PRIV(dev)->subs_tx = PRIV(dev)->subs_tail;
> > > + if (i >= PRIV(dev)->subs_tail || !sdev) {
> >
> > `!sdev` should be `sdev == NULL`, see [1].
> OK, will be fixed.
>
> >
> > > + DEBUG("No device ready, deactivating tx_dev");
> > > + PRIV(dev)->subs_tx = PRIV(dev)->subs_tail;
> > > + }
> > > } else {
> > > return;
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 2.7.4
> > >
> >
> > With these changes,
> >
> > Acked-by: Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>
> >
> > [1]:
> > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdpd
> > k.org%2Fdoc%2Fguides%2Fcontributing%2Fcoding_style.html%23c-
> > statement-style-and-
> > conventions&data=02%7C01%7Cmatan%40mellanox.com%7C6283c71dcc2b4
> > ebe5f6608d4e48350cd%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%
> > 7C636384700025293702&sdata=nNMTElzhe3RlEMc3vB67QlwAYYYQ%2ByNNp
> > 9ebXgSsMM8%3D&reserved=0
> > --
> > Gaëtan Rivet
> > 6WIND
>
> Thanks
> Matan Azrad
--
Gaëtan Rivet
6WIND
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-16 12:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-15 6:59 Matan Azrad
2017-08-16 8:46 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2017-08-16 9:02 ` Matan Azrad
2017-08-16 12:51 ` Gaëtan Rivet [this message]
2017-08-16 14:19 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] " Matan Azrad
2017-08-16 14:39 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2017-08-16 14:53 ` Matan Azrad
2017-08-21 12:56 ` Ferruh Yigit
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170816125151.GM8124@bidouze.vm.6wind.com \
--to=gaetan.rivet@6wind.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=matan@mellanox.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).