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: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 11:24:00 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772588627EE60@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AM6PR0502MB3797F16A8B4FE5FF9AE47822D2EA0@AM6PR0502MB3797.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Matan,
> Hi Konstantin
>
> From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Tuesday, January 16, 2018 9:11 PM
> > Hi Matan,
> >
> > >
> > > Hi Konstantin
> > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Monday, January 15, 2018 8:44 PM
> > > > Hi Matan,
> > > > > Hi Konstantin
> > > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Monday, January 15, 2018 1:45 PM
> > > > > > Hi Matan,
> > > > > > > Hi Konstantin
> > > > > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Friday, January 12, 2018 2:02 AM
> > > > > > > > Hi Matan,
> > > > > > > > > Hi Konstantin
> > > > > > > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Thursday, January 11, 2018 2:40
> > > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Matan,
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Konstantin
> > > > > > > > > > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Wednesday, January 10, 2018
> > > > > > > > > > > 3:36 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Matan,
> > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I see the relation like next:
> > > > > > > > > Since the ownership mechanism synchronization is in ethdev
> > > > > > > > > responsibility, we must protect against user mistakes as
> > > > > > > > > much as we can by
> > > > > > > > using the same lock.
> > > > > > > > > So, if user try to set by invalid owner (exactly the ID
> > > > > > > > > which currently is
> > > > > > > > allocated) we can protect on it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hmm, not sure why you can't do same checking with different
> > > > > > > > lock or atomic variable?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The set ownership API is protected by ownership lock and
> > > > > > > checks the owner ID validity By reading the next owner ID.
> > > > > > > So, the owner ID allocation and set API should use the same
> > > > > > > atomic
> > > > > > mechanism.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure but all you are doing for checking validity, is check that
> > > > > > owner_id > 0 &&& owner_id < next_ownwe_id, right?
> > > > > > As you don't allow owner_id overlap (16/3248 bits) you can
> > > > > > safely do same check with just atomic_get(&next_owner_id).
> > > > > >
> > > > > It will not protect it, scenario:
> > > > > - current next_id is X.
> > > > > - call set ownership of port A with owner id X by thread 0(by user
> > mistake).
> > > > > - context switch
> > > > > - allocate new id by thread 1 and get X and change next_id to X+1
> > > > atomically.
> > > > > - context switch
> > > > > - Thread 0 validate X by atomic_read and succeed to take ownership.
> > > > > - The system loosed the port(or will be managed by two entities) -
> > crash.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ok, and how using lock will protect you with such scenario?
> > >
> > > The owner set API validation by thread 0 should fail because the owner
> > validation is included in the protected section.
> >
> > Then your validation function would fail even if you'll use atomic ops instead
> > of lock.
> No.
> With atomic this specific scenario will cause the validation to pass.
Can you explain to me how?
rte_eth_is_valid_owner_id(uint16_t owner_id)
{
int32_t cur_owner_id = RTE_MIN(rte_atomic32_get(next_owner_id), UINT16_MAX);
if (owner_id == RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER || owner > cur_owner_id) {
RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Invalid owner_id=%d.\n", owner_id);
return 0;
}
return 1;
}
Let say your next_owne_id==X, and you invoke rte_eth_is_valid_owner_id(owner_id=X+1) -
it would fail.
> With lock no next_id changes can be done while the thread is in the set API.
>
> > But in fact your code is not protected for that scenario - doesn't matter will
> > you'll use lock or atomic ops.
> > Let's considerer your current code with the following scenario:
> >
> > next_owner_id == 1
> > 1) Process 0:
> > rte_eth_dev_owner_new(&owner_id);
> > now owner_id == 1 and next_owner_id == 2
> > 2) Process 1 (by mistake):
> > rte_eth_dev_owner_set(port_id=1, owner->id=1); It will complete
> > successfully, as owner_id ==1 is considered as valid.
> > 3) Process 0:
> > rte_eth_dev_owner_set(port_id=1, owner->id=1); It will also complete
> > with success, as owner->id is valid is equal to current port owner_id.
> > So you finished with 2 processes assuming that they do own exclusively then
> > same port.
> >
> > Honestly in that situation locking around nest_owner_id wouldn't give you
> > any advantages over atomic ops.
> >
>
> This is a different scenario that we can't protect on it with atomic or locks.
> But for the first scenario I described I think we can.
> Please read it again, I described it step by step.
>
> > >
> > > > I don't think you can protect yourself against such scenario with or
> > > > without locking.
> > > > Unless you'll make it harder for the mis-behaving thread to guess
> > > > valid owner_id, or add some extra logic here.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > The set(and others) ownership APIs already uses the ownership
> > > > > > > lock so I
> > > > > > think it makes sense to use the same lock also in ID allocation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I agree about the uuid but still think the same lock
> > > > > > > > > should be used for
> > > > > > both.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But with uuid you don't need next_owner_id at all, right?
> > > > > > > > So lock will only be used for rte_eth_dev_data[] fields anyway.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry, I meant uint64_t, not uuid.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah ok, my thought uuid_t is better as with it you don't need to
> > > > > > support your own code to allocate new owner_id, but rely on
> > > > > > system libs
> > > > instead.
> > > > > > But wouldn't insist here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't think so, I can understand to use the ownership
> > > > > > > > > lock here(as in port
> > > > > > > > creation) but I don't think it is necessary too.
> > > > > > > > > What are we exactly protecting here?
> > > > > > > > > Don't you think it is just timing?(ask in the next moment
> > > > > > > > > and you may get another answer) I don't see optional crash.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Not sure what you mean here by timing...
> > > > > > > > As I understand rte_eth_dev_data[].name unique identifies
> > > > > > > > device and is used by port allocation/release/find functions.
> > > > > > > > As you stated above:
> > > > > > > > "1. The port allocation and port release synchronization
> > > > > > > > will be managed by ethdev."
> > > > > > > > To me it means that ethdev layer has to make sure that all
> > > > > > > > accesses to rte_eth_dev_data[].name are atomic.
> > > > > > > > Otherwise what would prevent the situation when one process
> > > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_allocate()->snprintf(rte_eth_dev_data[x].name,
> > > > > > > > ...) while second one does
> > > > > > rte_eth_dev_allocated(rte_eth_dev_data[x].name, ...) ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The second will get True or False and that is it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Under race condition - in the worst case it might crash, though
> > > > > > for that you'll have to be really unlucky.
> > > > > > Though in most cases as you said it would just not operate correctly.
> > > > > > I think if we start to protect dev->name by lock we need to do
> > > > > > it for all instances (both read and write).
> > > > > >
> > > > > Since under the ownership rules, the user must take ownership of a
> > > > > port
> > > > before using it, I still don't see a problem here.
> > > >
> > > > I am not talking about owner id or name here.
> > > > I am talking about dev->name.
> > > >
> > > So? The user still should take ownership of a device before using it (by
> > name or by port id).
> > > It can just read it without owning it, but no managing it.
> > >
> > > > > Please, Can you describe specific crash scenario and explain how
> > > > > could the
> > > > locking fix it?
> > > >
> > > > Let say thread 0 doing rte_eth_dev_allocate()-
> > > > >snprintf(rte_eth_dev_data[x].name, ...), thread 1 doing
> > > > rte_pmd_ring_remove()->rte_eth_dev_allocated()->strcmp().
> > > > And because of race condition - rte_eth_dev_allocated() will return
> > > > rte_eth_dev * for the wrong device.
> > > Which wrong device do you mean? I guess it is the device which currently is
> > being created by thread 0.
> > > > Then rte_pmd_ring_remove() will call rte_free() for related
> > > > resources, while It can still be in use by someone else.
> > > The rte_pmd_ring_remove caller(some DPDK entity) must take ownership
> > > (or validate that he is the owner) of a port before doing it(free, release), so
> > no issue here.
> >
> > Forget about ownership for a second.
> > Suppose we have a process it created ring port for itself (without setting any
> > ownership) and used it for some time.
> > Then it decided to remove it, so it calls rte_pmd_ring_remove() for it.
> > At the same time second process decides to call rte_eth_dev_allocate() (let
> > say for anither ring port).
> > They could collide trying to read (process 0) and modify (process 1) same
> > string rte_eth_dev_data[].name.
> >
> Do you mean that process 0 will compare successfully the process 1 new port name?
Yes.
> The state are in local process memory - so process 0 will not compare the process 1 port, from its point of view this port is in UNUSED
> state.
>
Ok, and why it can't be in attached state in process 0 too?
Konstantin
> > Konstantin
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Also I'm not sure I fully understand your scenario looks like moving
> > > the device state setting in allocation to be after the name setting will be
> > good.
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > > Konstantin
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe if it had been called just a moment after, It might get
> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > answer.
> > > > > > > Because these APIs don't change ethdev structure(just read),
> > > > > > > it can be
> > > > OK.
> > > > > > > But again, I can understand to use ownership lock also here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Konstantin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-17 11:24 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
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 [this message]
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=2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772588627EE60@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).