From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1794F45CEC; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 04:14:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC4EB402C3; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 04:14:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.190]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3E54400D6 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 04:14:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.88.163]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4XnWgY3kZvz2Dh2V; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:12:41 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggemv703-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [10.3.19.46]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6506180043; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:14:29 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemn100009.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.112) by dggemv703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:14:29 +0800 Received: from [10.67.121.59] (10.67.121.59) by kwepemn100009.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:14:29 +0800 Message-ID: <162cd52f-ddeb-a1ac-c639-37e642965dfb@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:14:28 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v7 0/5] app/testpmd: support multiple process attach and detach port From: "lihuisong (C)" <lihuisong@huawei.com> To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>, <thomas@monjalon.net>, <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>, Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> CC: <dev@dpdk.org>, <fengchengwen@huawei.com>, <liuyonglong@huawei.com> References: <20220825024425.10534-1-lihuisong@huawei.com> <20240929055241.29268-1-lihuisong@huawei.com> <542fb047-0950-01c9-56be-ef4d47ec7b5f@huawei.com> <26306692-6ce5-432f-ad7f-d13844c9e0b7@amd.com> <e32653ef-8a83-1c34-8207-28db6b1b8035@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <e32653ef-8a83-1c34-8207-28db6b1b8035@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.67.121.59] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.178) To kwepemn100009.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.112) X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Hi Ferruh, Stephen, Andrew and Thomas, Can you go back to this thread? 在 2024/10/18 10:48, lihuisong (C) 写道: > Hi Ferruh, > > Thanks for your considering again. please see reply inline. > > 在 2024/10/18 9:04, Ferruh Yigit 写道: >> On 10/8/2024 3:32 AM, lihuisong (C) wrote: >>> Hi Thomas and Ferruh, >>> >>> We've discussed it on and off a few times, and we've reached some >>> consensus. >>> They've been going through more than 2 years😅 >>> Can you have a look at this series again? >>> If we really don't need it, I will drop it from my upstreaming list. >>> >> Hi Huisong, >> >> I was not really convinced with the patch series, but did not want to >> block it outright, sorry that this caused patch series stay around. >> >> As checked again, still feels like adding unnecessary complexity, and I >> am for rejecting this series. >> >> Overall target is to be able to support hotplug with primary/secondary >> process, and uses event handlers for this but this requires adding a new >> ethdev state to be able iterate over devices etc... >> Perhaps better way to support this without relying on event handlers. > Ignoring the modification of tesptmd is ok to me. > But we need to restrict testpmd not to support attach and detach port > in multiple process case. > Otherwise. these issues this series solved will be encountered. Do we need to announce this point for testpmd? > > BTW, I want to say the patch [2/5] which introduced > RTE_ETH_DEV_ALLOCATED should be thought again. > Because it is an real issue in ethdev layer. This is also the fruit > that Thomas, you and I discussed before. > Please look at this patch again. If we don't merge patch [2/5], user also may encounter this issue as the commit log of patch [2/5] mentioned. Please take a look at the commit of patch [2/5] and the modification in patch [3/5].