DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.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, 18 Jan 2018 14:26:18 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <AM6PR0502MB37974A580CB5C6A1BB806AD4D2E80@AM6PR0502MB3797.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772588628029A@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>

Hi Konstantine

> Hi Matan,
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Someone in process 0 should attach it using protected
> > > > > > > attach_secondary
> > > > > > somewhere in your scenario.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, process 0 can have this port attached too, why not?
> > > > > See the function with inline comments:
> > > > >
> > > > > struct rte_eth_dev *
> > > > > rte_eth_dev_allocated(const char *name) {
> > > > > 	unsigned i;
> > > > >
> > > > > 	for (i = 0; i < RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS; i++) {
> > > > >
> > > > > 	    	The below state are in local process memory,
> > > > > 		So, if here process 1 will allocate a new port (the current
> > > > > i),
> > > > update its local state to ATTACHED and write the name,
> > > > > 		the state is not visible by process 0 until someone in process
> > > > 0 will attach it by rte_eth_dev_attach_secondary.
> > > > > 		So, to use rte_eth_dev_attach_secondary process 0 must
> > > > take the lock
> > > > > and it can't, because it is currently locked by process 1.
> > > >
> > > > Ok I see.
> > > > Thanks for your patience.
> > > > BTW, that means that if let say process 0 will call
> > > > rte_eth_dev_allocate("xxx") and process 1 will call
> > > > rte_eth_dev_allocate("yyy") we can endup with same port_id be used
> > > > for different devices and 2 processes will overwrite the same
> > > rte_eth_dev_data[port_id]?
> > >
> > > No, contrary to the state, the lock itself is in shared memory, so 2
> > > processes cannot allocate port in the same time.(you can see it in
> > > the next patch of this series).
> 
> I am not talking about racing here.
> Let say process 0 calls rte_pmd_ring_probe()->....-
> >rte_eth_dev_allocate("xxx")
> rte_eth_dev_allocate() finds that port N is 'free', i.e.
> local rte_eth_devices[N].state == RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED so it assigns new
> dev ("xxx") to port N.
> Then after some time process 1 calls rte_pmd_ring_probe()->....-
> >rte_eth_dev_allocate("yyy").
> From its perspective port N is still free:  rte_eth_devices[N].state ==
> RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED, so it will assign new dev ("yyy") to the same port.
> 

Yes you right, this is a problem(not related actually to port ownership) but look:
As I understand the secondary processes are not allowed to create a ports and they must to use attach_secondary API, but there is not hardcoded check which prevent them to do it.


Konstantin
> 
> 
> > >
> >
> > Actually I think only one process(primary) should allocate ports, the others
> should attach them.
> > The race of port allocation is only between the threads of the primary
> process.
> >
> >
> > > > Konstantin
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 		if ((rte_eth_devices[i].state == RTE_ETH_DEV_ATTACHED)
> > > > &&
> > > > > 		strcmp(rte_eth_devices[i].data->name, name) == 0)
> > > > > 			return &rte_eth_devices[i];
> > > > > 	}
> > > > > 	return NULL;
> > > > >
> > > > >

  reply	other threads:[~2018-01-18 14:26 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
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 [this message]
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=AM6PR0502MB37974A580CB5C6A1BB806AD4D2E80@AM6PR0502MB3797.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com \
    --to=matan@mellanox.com \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=gaetan.rivet@6wind.com \
    --cc=jingjing.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.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).