From: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
To: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
Cc: "Nélio Laranjeiro" <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] net/mlx5: support device removal event
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 10:38:21 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DB6PR0502MB304893E38927D4784301AFD4D2960@DB6PR0502MB3048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170905092802.GA4301@6wind.com>
Hi Adrien
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 12:28 PM
> To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
> Cc: Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] net/mlx5: support device removal event
>
> Hi Matan,
>
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 05:52:55PM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote:
> > Hi Adrien,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 6:33 PM
> > > To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
> > > Cc: Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] net/mlx5: support device removal
> > > event
> > >
> > > Hi Matan,
> > >
> > > One comment I have is, while this patch adds support for RMV, it
> > > also silently addresses a bug (see large comment you added to
> > > priv_link_status_update()).
> > >
> > > This should be split in two commits, with the fix part coming first
> > > and CC stable@dpdk.org, and a second commit adding RMV support
> proper.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, the mlx4 bug was not appeared in the mlx5 previous code,
> > Probably because the RMV interrupt was not implemented in mlx5 before
> this patch.
>
> Good point, no RMV could occur before it is implemented, however a
> dedicated commit for the fix itself (i.e. alarm callback not supposed to end up
> calling ibv_get_async_event()) might better explain the logic behind these
> changes. What I mean is, if there was no problem, you wouldn't need to
> make
> priv_link_status_update() a separate function, right?
>
The separation was done mainly because of the new interrupt implementation,
else, there was bug here.
The unnecessary alarm ibv_get_async_event calling was harmless in
the previous code.
I gets your point for the logic explanation behind these changes and I can add it in this
patch commit log to be clearer, something like:
The link update operation was separated from the interrupt callback
to avoid RMV interrupt disregard and unnecessary event acknowledgment
caused by the inconsistent link status alarm callback.
> > The big comment just explains the link inconsistent issue and was
> > added here since Nelio and I think the new function,
> > priv_link_status_update(), justifies this comment for future review.
>
> I understand, this could also have been part of the commit log of the
> dedicated commit.
>
Are you sure we need to describe the code comment reason in the commit log?
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Adrien Mazarguil
> 6WIND
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-05 10:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-13 12:25 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] " Matan Azrad
2017-08-13 12:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] net/mlx5: fix probe failure report Matan Azrad
2017-08-23 9:44 ` Nélio Laranjeiro
2017-09-01 10:40 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Ferruh Yigit
2017-08-23 9:40 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] net/mlx5: support device removal event Nélio Laranjeiro
2017-08-23 19:44 ` Matan Azrad
2017-08-24 7:38 ` Nélio Laranjeiro
2017-08-24 14:33 ` Matan Azrad
2017-08-25 8:29 ` Nélio Laranjeiro
2017-08-29 8:30 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Matan Azrad
2017-09-04 12:49 ` Nélio Laranjeiro
2017-09-04 13:55 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " Matan Azrad
2017-09-04 15:33 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2017-09-04 17:52 ` Matan Azrad
2017-09-05 9:28 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2017-09-05 10:38 ` Matan Azrad [this message]
2017-09-05 12:01 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2017-09-05 13:36 ` Matan Azrad
2017-09-06 7:12 ` Adrien Mazarguil
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=DB6PR0502MB304893E38927D4784301AFD4D2960@DB6PR0502MB3048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com \
--to=matan@mellanox.com \
--cc=adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com \
/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).