From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>,
"Wu, Jingjing" <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
"Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/6] ethdev: add port ownership
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:40:06 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772588627B12A@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AM6PR0502MB379755992EDDF002D06D9521D2110@AM6PR0502MB3797.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Matan,
>
> Hi Konstantin
>
> From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Wednesday, January 10, 2018 3:36 PM
> > Hi Matan,
> >
> > Few comments from me below.
> > BTW, do you plan to add ownership mandatory check in control path
> > functions that change port configuration?
>
> No.
So it still totally voluntary usage and application nneds to be changed
to exploit it?
Apart from RTE_FOR_EACH_DEV() change proposed by Gaetan?
>
>
> > Konstantin
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Matan Azrad [mailto:matan@mellanox.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 7, 2018 9:46 AM
> > > To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; Gaetan Rivet
> > > <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>; Richardson,
> > > Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> > > <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> > > Subject: [PATCH v2 2/6] ethdev: add port ownership
> > >
> > > The ownership of a port is implicit in DPDK.
> > > Making it explicit is better from the next reasons:
> > > 1. It will define well who is in charge of the port usage synchronization.
> > > 2. A library could work on top of a port.
> > > 3. A port can work on top of another port.
> > >
> > > Also in the fail-safe case, an issue has been met in testpmd.
> > > We need to check that the application is not trying to use a port
> > > which is already managed by fail-safe.
> > >
> > > A port owner is built from owner id(number) and owner name(string)
> > > while the owner id must be unique to distinguish between two identical
> > > entity instances and the owner name can be any name.
> > > The name helps to logically recognize the owner by different DPDK
> > > entities and allows easy debug.
> > > Each DPDK entity can allocate an owner unique identifier and can use
> > > it and its preferred name to owns valid ethdev ports.
> > > Each DPDK entity can get any port owner status to decide if it can
> > > manage the port or not.
> > >
> > > The mechanism is synchronized for both the primary process threads and
> > > the secondary processes threads to allow secondary process entity to
> > > be a port owner.
> > >
> > > Add a sinchronized ownership mechanism to DPDK Ethernet devices to
> > > avoid multiple management of a device by different DPDK entities.
> > >
> > > The current ethdev internal port management is not affected by this
> > > feature.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
> > > ---
> > > doc/guides/prog_guide/poll_mode_drv.rst | 14 ++-
> > > lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 206
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h | 89 ++++++++++++++
> > > lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev_version.map | 12 ++
> > > 4 files changed, 311 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
> > > b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c index 684e3e8..0e12452 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
> > > @@ -70,7 +70,10 @@
> > >
> > > static const char *MZ_RTE_ETH_DEV_DATA = "rte_eth_dev_data"; struct
> > > rte_eth_dev rte_eth_devices[RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS];
> > > +/* ports data array stored in shared memory */
> > > static struct rte_eth_dev_data *rte_eth_dev_data;
> > > +/* next owner identifier stored in shared memory */ static uint16_t
> > > +*rte_eth_next_owner_id;
> > > static uint8_t eth_dev_last_created_port;
> > >
> > > /* spinlock for eth device callbacks */ @@ -82,6 +85,9 @@
> > > /* spinlock for add/remove tx callbacks */ static rte_spinlock_t
> > > rte_eth_tx_cb_lock = RTE_SPINLOCK_INITIALIZER;
> > >
> > > +/* spinlock for eth device ownership management stored in shared
> > > +memory */ static rte_spinlock_t *rte_eth_dev_ownership_lock;
> > > +
> > > /* store statistics names and its offset in stats structure */
> > > struct rte_eth_xstats_name_off {
> > > char name[RTE_ETH_XSTATS_NAME_SIZE]; @@ -153,14 +159,18 @@
> > enum { }
> > >
> > > static void
> > > -rte_eth_dev_data_alloc(void)
> > > +rte_eth_dev_share_data_alloc(void)
> > > {
> > > const unsigned flags = 0;
> > > const struct rte_memzone *mz;
> > > + const unsigned int data_size = RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS *
> > > + sizeof(*rte_eth_dev_data);
> > >
> > > if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_PRIMARY) {
> > > + /* Allocate shared memory for port data and ownership */
> > > mz = rte_memzone_reserve(MZ_RTE_ETH_DEV_DATA,
> > > - RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS *
> > sizeof(*rte_eth_dev_data),
> > > + data_size + sizeof(*rte_eth_next_owner_id)
> > +
> > > + sizeof(*rte_eth_dev_ownership_lock),
> > > rte_socket_id(), flags);
> > > } else
> > > mz = rte_memzone_lookup(MZ_RTE_ETH_DEV_DATA);
> > > @@ -168,9 +178,17 @@ enum {
> > > rte_panic("Cannot allocate memzone for ethernet port
> > data\n");
> > >
> > > rte_eth_dev_data = mz->addr;
> > > - if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_PRIMARY)
> > > - memset(rte_eth_dev_data, 0,
> > > - RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS *
> > sizeof(*rte_eth_dev_data));
> > > + rte_eth_next_owner_id = (uint16_t *)((uintptr_t)mz->addr +
> > > + data_size);
> > > + rte_eth_dev_ownership_lock = (rte_spinlock_t *)
> > > + ((uintptr_t)rte_eth_next_owner_id +
> > > + sizeof(*rte_eth_next_owner_id));
> >
> >
> > I think that might make rte_eth_dev_ownership_lock location not 4B
> > aligned...
>
> Where can I find the documentation about it?
That's in your code above - data_size and mz_->addr are both at least 4B aligned -
rte_eth_dev_ownership_lock = mz->addr + data_size + 2;
You can align it manually, but as discussed below it is probably easier to group related
fields into the same struct.
>
> > Why just not to put all data that you are trying to allocate as one chunck into
> > the same struct:
> > static struct {
> > uint16_t next_owner_id;
> > /* spinlock for eth device ownership management stored in shared
> > memory */
> > rte_spinlock_t dev_ownership_lock;
> > rte_eth_dev_data *data;
> > } rte_eth_dev_data;
> > and allocate/use it everywhere?
> > That would simplify allocation/management stuff.
> >
> I don't understand what exactly do you mean. ?
> If you mean to group all in one struct like:
>
> static struct {
> uint16_t next_owner_id;
> rte_spinlock_t dev_ownership_lock;
> rte_eth_dev_data data[];
> } rte_eth_dev_share_data;
>
> Just to simplify the addresses calculation above,
Yep, that's exactly what I meant.
As you said it would help with bulk allocation/alignment stuff, plus
IMO it is better and easier to group several related global together -
Improve code quality, will make it easier to read & maintain in future.
> It will change more code in ethdev relative to the old rte_eth_dev_data global array and will be more intrusive.
> Stay it as is, focuses the change only here.
Yes it would require few more changes, though I think it worth it.
>
> I can just move the spinlock memory allocation to be at the beginning of the memzone(to be sure about the alignment).
>
> > It is good to see that now scanning/updating rte_eth_dev_data[] is lock
> > protected, but it might be not very plausible to protect both data[] and
> > next_owner_id using the same lock.
>
> I guess you mean to the owner structure in rte_eth_dev_data[port_id].
> The next_owner_id is read by ownership APIs(for owner validation), so it makes sense to use the same lock.
> Actually, why not?
Well to me next_owner_id and rte_eth_dev_data[] are not directly related.
You may create new owner_id but it doesn't mean you would update rte_eth_dev_data[] immediately.
And visa-versa - you might just want to update rte_eth_dev_data[].name or .owner_id.
It is not very good coding practice to use same lock for non-related data structures.
>
> > In fact, for next_owner_id, you don't need a lock - just rte_atomic_t should
> > be enough.
>
> I don't think so, it is problematic in next_owner_id wraparound and may complicate the code in other places which read it.
IMO it is not that complicated, something like that should work I think.
/* init to 0 at startup*/
rte_atomic32_t *owner_id;
int new_owner_id(void)
{
int32_t x;
x = rte_atomic32_add_return(&owner_id, 1);
if (x > UINT16_MAX) {
rte_atomic32_dec(&owner_id);
return -EOVERWLOW;
} else
return x;
}
> Why not just to keep it simple and using the same lock?
Lock is also fine, I just think it better be a separate one - that would protext just next_owner_id.
Though if you are going to use uuid here - all that probably not relevant any more.
>
> > Another alternative would be to use 2 locks - one for next_owner_id second
> > for actual data[] protection.
> >
> > Another thing - you'll probably need to grab/release a lock inside
> > rte_eth_dev_allocated() too.
> > It is a public function used by drivers, so need to be protected too.
> >
>
> Yes, I thought about it, but decided not to use lock in next:
> rte_eth_dev_allocated
> rte_eth_dev_count
> rte_eth_dev_get_name_by_port
> rte_eth_dev_get_port_by_name
> maybe more...
As I can see in patch #3 you protect by lock access to rte_eth_dev_data[].name
(which seems like a good thing).
So I think any other public function that access rte_eth_dev_data[].name should be
protected by the same lock.
>
> Don't you think it is just timing depended?(ask in the next moment and you may get another answer) I don't see optional crash.
>
> > > +
> > > + if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_PRIMARY) {
> > > + memset(rte_eth_dev_data, 0, data_size);
> > > + *rte_eth_next_owner_id = RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER + 1;
> > > + rte_spinlock_init(rte_eth_dev_ownership_lock);
> > > + }
> > > }
> > >
> > > struct rte_eth_dev *
> > > @@ -225,7 +243,7 @@ struct rte_eth_dev *
> > > }
> > >
> > > if (rte_eth_dev_data == NULL)
> > > - rte_eth_dev_data_alloc();
> > > + rte_eth_dev_share_data_alloc();
> > >
> > > if (rte_eth_dev_allocated(name) != NULL) {
> > > RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Ethernet Device with name %s
> > already
> > > allocated!\n", @@ -253,7 +271,7 @@ struct rte_eth_dev *
> > > struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev;
> > >
> > > if (rte_eth_dev_data == NULL)
> > > - rte_eth_dev_data_alloc();
> > > + rte_eth_dev_share_data_alloc();
> > >
> > > for (i = 0; i < RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS; i++) {
> > > if (strcmp(rte_eth_dev_data[i].name, name) == 0) @@ -
> > 278,8 +296,12
> > > @@ struct rte_eth_dev *
> > > if (eth_dev == NULL)
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > - memset(eth_dev->data, 0, sizeof(struct rte_eth_dev_data));
> > > + rte_spinlock_lock(rte_eth_dev_ownership_lock);
> > > +
> > > eth_dev->state = RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED;
> > > + memset(eth_dev->data, 0, sizeof(struct rte_eth_dev_data));
> > > +
> > > + rte_spinlock_unlock(rte_eth_dev_ownership_lock);
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -294,6 +316,174 @@ struct rte_eth_dev *
> > > return 1;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static int
> > > +rte_eth_is_valid_owner_id(uint16_t owner_id) {
> > > + if (owner_id == RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER ||
> > > + (*rte_eth_next_owner_id > RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER &&
> > > + *rte_eth_next_owner_id <= owner_id)) {
> > > + RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Invalid owner_id=%d.\n", owner_id);
> > > + return 0;
> > > + }
> > > + return 1;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +uint16_t
> > > +rte_eth_find_next_owned_by(uint16_t port_id, const uint16_t
> > owner_id)
> > > +{
> > > + while (port_id < RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS &&
> > > + (rte_eth_devices[port_id].state != RTE_ETH_DEV_ATTACHED ||
> > > + rte_eth_devices[port_id].data->owner.id != owner_id))
> > > + port_id++;
> > > +
> > > + if (port_id >= RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS)
> > > + return RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS;
> > > +
> > > + return port_id;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +int
> > > +rte_eth_dev_owner_new(uint16_t *owner_id) {
> > > + int ret = 0;
> > > +
> > > + rte_spinlock_lock(rte_eth_dev_ownership_lock);
> > > +
> > > + if (*rte_eth_next_owner_id == RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER) {
> > > + /* Counter wrap around. */
> > > + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Reached maximum number of
> > Ethernet port owners.\n");
> > > + ret = -EUSERS;
> > > + } else {
> > > + *owner_id = (*rte_eth_next_owner_id)++;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + rte_spinlock_unlock(rte_eth_dev_ownership_lock);
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +int
> > > +rte_eth_dev_owner_set(const uint16_t port_id,
> > > + const struct rte_eth_dev_owner *owner)
> >
> > As a nit - if you'll have rte_eth_dev_owner_set(port_id, old_owner,
> > new_owner)
> > - that might be more plausible for user, and would greatly simplify unset()
> > part:
> > just set(port_id, cur_owner, zero_owner);
> >
>
> How the user should know the old owner?
By dev_owner_get() or it might have it stored somewhere already
(or constructed on the fly in case of NO_OWNER).
>
> > > +{
> > > + struct rte_eth_dev_owner *port_owner;
> > > + int ret = 0;
> > > + int sret;
> > > +
> > > + rte_spinlock_lock(rte_eth_dev_ownership_lock);
> > > +
> > > + if (!rte_eth_dev_is_valid_port(port_id)) {
> > > + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Invalid port_id=%d\n", port_id);
> > > + ret = -ENODEV;
> > > + goto unlock;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (!rte_eth_is_valid_owner_id(owner->id)) {
> > > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > > + goto unlock;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + port_owner = &rte_eth_devices[port_id].data->owner;
> > > + if (port_owner->id != RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER &&
> > > + port_owner->id != owner->id) {
> > > + RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL,
> > > + "Cannot set owner to port %d already owned by
> > %s_%05d.\n",
> > > + port_id, port_owner->name, port_owner->id);
> > > + ret = -EPERM;
> > > + goto unlock;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + sret = snprintf(port_owner->name,
> > RTE_ETH_MAX_OWNER_NAME_LEN, "%s",
> > > + owner->name);
> > > + if (sret < 0 || sret >= RTE_ETH_MAX_OWNER_NAME_LEN) {
> >
> > Personally, I don't see any reason to fail if description was truncated...
> > Another alternative - just use rte_malloc() here to allocate big enough buffer
> > to hold the description.
> >
>
> But it is static allocation like in the device name, why to allocate it differently?
Static allocation is fine by me - I just said there is probably no need to fail
if description provide by use will be truncated in that case.
Though if used description is *that* important - rte_malloc() can help here.
>
> > > + memset(port_owner->name, 0,
> > RTE_ETH_MAX_OWNER_NAME_LEN);
> > > + RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Invalid owner name.\n");
> > > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > > + goto unlock;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + port_owner->id = owner->id;
> > > + RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Port %d owner is %s_%05d.\n", port_id,
> > > + owner->name, owner->id);
> > > +
> >
> > As another nit - you can avoid all these gotos by restructuring code a bit:
> >
> > rte_eth_dev_owner_set(const uint16_t port_id, const struct
> > rte_eth_dev_owner *owner) {
> > rte_spinlock_lock(...);
> > ret = _eth_dev_owner_set_unlocked(port_id, owner);
> > rte_spinlock_unlock(...);
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> Don't you like gotos? :)
Not really :)
> I personally use it only in error\performance scenarios.
Same here - prefer to avoid them if possible.
> Do you think it worth the effort?
IMO - yes, well structured code is much easier to understand and maintain.
Konstantin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-11 12:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 212+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-28 11:57 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/5] ethdev: Port ownership Matan Azrad
2017-11-28 11:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/5] ethdev: free a port by a dedicated API Matan Azrad
2017-11-28 11:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/5] ethdev: add port ownership Matan Azrad
2017-11-30 12:36 ` Neil Horman
2017-11-30 13:24 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2017-11-30 14:30 ` Matan Azrad
2017-11-30 15:09 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2017-11-30 15:43 ` Matan Azrad
2017-12-01 12:09 ` Neil Horman
2017-12-03 8:04 ` Matan Azrad
2017-12-03 11:10 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-12-03 13:46 ` Matan Azrad
2017-12-04 16:01 ` Neil Horman
2017-12-04 18:10 ` Matan Azrad
2017-12-04 22:30 ` Neil Horman
2017-12-05 6:08 ` Matan Azrad
2017-12-05 10:05 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-12-08 11:35 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-12-08 12:31 ` Neil Horman
2017-12-21 17:06 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-12-21 17:43 ` Neil Horman
2017-12-21 19:37 ` Matan Azrad
2017-12-21 20:14 ` Neil Horman
2017-12-21 21:57 ` Matan Azrad
2017-12-22 14:26 ` Neil Horman
2017-12-23 22:36 ` Matan Azrad
2017-12-29 16:56 ` Neil Horman
2017-12-05 19:26 ` Neil Horman
2017-12-08 11:06 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-12-05 11:12 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-12-05 11:44 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-12-05 11:53 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-12-05 14:56 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-12-05 14:57 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-12-05 11:47 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-12-05 15:13 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2017-12-05 15:49 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-11-28 11:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/5] net/failsafe: free an eth port by a dedicated API Matan Azrad
2017-11-28 11:58 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/5] net/failsafe: use ownership mechanism to own ports Matan Azrad
2017-11-28 11:58 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 5/5] app/testpmd: adjust ethdev port ownership Matan Azrad
2018-01-07 9:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/6] ethdev: " Matan Azrad
2018-01-07 9:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/6] ethdev: fix port data reset timing Matan Azrad
2018-01-07 9:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/6] ethdev: add port ownership Matan Azrad
2018-01-10 13:36 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-10 16:58 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-11 12:40 ` Ananyev, Konstantin [this message]
2018-01-11 14:51 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-12 0:02 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-12 7:24 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-15 11:45 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-15 13:09 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-15 18:43 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-16 8:04 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-16 19:11 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-16 20:32 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-17 11:24 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-17 12:05 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-17 12:54 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-17 13:10 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-17 16:52 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-17 18:02 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-17 20:34 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 14:17 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-18 14:26 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 14:41 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-18 14:45 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 14:51 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-18 15:00 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-17 14:00 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-17 17:01 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-18 13:10 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-18 14:00 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 16:54 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-18 17:20 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 18:41 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-18 20:21 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-19 1:41 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-19 7:14 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-19 9:30 ` Bruce Richardson
2018-01-19 10:44 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-19 13:30 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-19 13:57 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-19 14:13 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-19 15:27 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-19 17:17 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-19 17:43 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-19 18:12 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-19 19:47 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-19 20:19 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-19 22:52 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-20 3:38 ` Tuxdriver
2018-01-20 12:54 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-20 14:02 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-19 12:55 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-19 13:52 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-18 16:27 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-17 17:58 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 13:20 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-18 14:52 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-19 13:57 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-19 14:07 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-19 14:32 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-19 17:09 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-19 17:37 ` Neil Horman
2018-01-19 18:10 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-21 22:12 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-01-07 9:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/6] ethdev: synchronize port allocation Matan Azrad
2018-01-07 9:58 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-07 9:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/6] net/failsafe: free an eth port by a dedicated API Matan Azrad
2018-01-07 9:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/6] net/failsafe: use ownership mechanism to own ports Matan Azrad
2018-01-08 10:32 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2018-01-08 11:16 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-08 11:35 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2018-01-07 9:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 6/6] app/testpmd: adjust ethdev port ownership Matan Azrad
2018-01-08 11:39 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2018-01-08 12:30 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-08 13:30 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2018-01-08 13:55 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-08 14:21 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2018-01-08 14:42 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-16 5:53 ` Lu, Wenzhuo
2018-01-16 8:15 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-17 0:46 ` Lu, Wenzhuo
2018-01-17 8:51 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 0:53 ` Lu, Wenzhuo
2018-01-18 16:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/7] Port ownership and syncronization Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 16:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/7] ethdev: fix port data reset timing Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 17:00 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-19 12:38 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-03-05 11:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-05 14:52 ` Matan Azrad
2018-03-05 15:06 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-05 15:12 ` Matan Azrad
2018-03-27 22:37 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-03-28 12:07 ` Matan Azrad
2018-03-30 10:39 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-19 11:07 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-25 12:16 ` Matan Azrad
2018-04-25 12:30 ` Ori Kam
2018-04-25 12:54 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-25 14:01 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 16:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/7] ethdev: fix used portid allocation Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 17:00 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-19 12:40 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-20 16:48 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-20 17:26 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-18 16:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/7] ethdev: add port ownership Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 21:11 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-19 12:41 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-18 16:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/7] ethdev: synchronize port allocation Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 20:43 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-18 20:52 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 21:17 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-19 12:47 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-18 16:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 5/7] net/failsafe: free an eth port by a dedicated API Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 16:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/7] net/failsafe: use ownership mechanism to own ports Matan Azrad
2018-01-18 16:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 7/7] app/testpmd: adjust ethdev port ownership Matan Azrad
2018-01-19 12:37 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-19 12:51 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-19 13:08 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-19 13:35 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-19 15:00 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2018-01-20 18:14 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-22 10:17 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2018-01-22 11:22 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-22 12:28 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-22 13:22 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-22 20:48 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-23 8:54 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-23 12:56 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2018-01-23 14:30 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-25 9:36 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-25 10:05 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-25 11:15 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-25 11:33 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-25 11:55 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-23 13:34 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-23 14:18 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-23 15:12 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-23 15:18 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-23 17:33 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-23 21:18 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-24 8:10 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-24 18:30 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-25 10:55 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-25 11:09 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-01-25 11:27 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-23 14:43 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-20 21:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/7] Port ownership and syncronization Matan Azrad
2018-01-20 21:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/7] ethdev: fix port data reset timing Matan Azrad
2018-01-20 21:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/7] ethdev: fix used portid allocation Matan Azrad
2018-01-20 21:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/7] ethdev: add port ownership Matan Azrad
2018-01-21 20:43 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-01-21 20:46 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-01-20 21:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/7] ethdev: synchronize port allocation Matan Azrad
2018-01-20 21:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 5/7] net/failsafe: free an eth port by a dedicated API Matan Azrad
2018-01-20 21:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 6/7] net/failsafe: use ownership mechanism to own ports Matan Azrad
2018-01-20 21:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 7/7] app/testpmd: adjust ethdev port ownership Matan Azrad
2018-01-22 16:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/7] Port ownership and synchronization Matan Azrad
2018-01-22 16:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/7] ethdev: fix port data reset timing Matan Azrad
2018-01-22 16:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/7] ethdev: fix used portid allocation Matan Azrad
2018-01-22 16:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/7] ethdev: add port ownership Matan Azrad
2018-01-22 16:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/7] ethdev: synchronize port allocation Matan Azrad
2018-01-22 16:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 5/7] net/failsafe: free an eth port by a dedicated API Matan Azrad
2018-01-22 16:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 6/7] net/failsafe: use ownership mechanism to own ports Matan Azrad
2018-01-22 16:38 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 7/7] app/testpmd: adjust ethdev port ownership Matan Azrad
2018-01-25 1:47 ` Lu, Wenzhuo
2018-01-25 8:30 ` Matan Azrad
2018-01-26 0:50 ` Lu, Wenzhuo
2018-01-29 11:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/7] Port ownership and synchronization Matan Azrad
2018-01-31 19:53 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-01-25 14:35 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/7] Port ownership and syncronization 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=2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772588627B12A@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=gaetan.rivet@6wind.com \
--cc=jingjing.wu@intel.com \
--cc=matan@mellanox.com \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/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).