From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFBB65A58
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  8 Jul 2015 11:04:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18])
 by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Jul 2015 02:04:43 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,430,1432623600"; d="scan'208";a="724929336"
Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.208.63])
 by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 08 Jul 2015 02:04:41 -0700
Received: by  (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 08 Jul 2015 10:04:41 +0025
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 10:04:41 +0100
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: "Qiu, Michael" <michael.qiu@intel.com>
Message-ID: <20150708090441.GA152@bricha3-MOBL3>
References: <1435132585-10192-1-git-send-email-michael.qiu@intel.com>
 <533710CFB86FA344BFBF2D6802E60286046B2833@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <533710CFB86FA344BFBF2D6802E60286046B2833@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: Fix wrong message in testpmd
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:04:45 -0000

On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 07:16:21AM +0000, Qiu, Michael wrote:
> Any comments? This is a bug fix, not a feature.
> 
> Thanks,
> Michael
> 
> On 6/24/2015 3:56 PM, Qiu, Michael wrote:
> > When close one port twice, testpmd will give out wrong messagse.
> >
> > testpmd> port stop  0
> > Stopping ports...
> > Checking link statuses...
> > Port 0 Link Up - speed 0 Mbps - full-duplex
> > Port 1 Link Up - speed 0 Mbps - full-duplex
> > Done
> > testpmd> port close 0
> > Closing ports...
> > Done
> > testpmd> port close 0
> > Closing ports...
> > Port 0 is now not stopped
> > Done
> > testpmd> 
> >
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Qiu <michael.qiu@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 6 ++++++
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> > index 3057791..907cda3 100644
> > --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> > +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> > @@ -1534,6 +1534,12 @@ close_port(portid_t pid)
> >  
> >  		port = &ports[pi];
> >  		if (rte_atomic16_cmpset(&(port->port_status),
> > +			RTE_PORT_CLOSED, RTE_PORT_CLOSED) == 1) {
> > +			printf("Port %d is already closed\n", pi);
> > +			continue;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		if (rte_atomic16_cmpset(&(port->port_status),
> >  			RTE_PORT_STOPPED, RTE_PORT_HANDLING) == 0) {
> >  			printf("Port %d is now not stopped\n", pi);
> >  			continue;

I know it's not part of your change, but "Now not stopped" doesn't really seem
right to me. What is the message actually trying to report?

/Bruce
>