DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Gaëtan Rivet" <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>
To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Ophir Munk <ophirmu@mellanox.com>, stable@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] net/failsafe: fix removed sub-device cleanup
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 10:56:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180522085656.bx3r3e4c6lz4xwlp@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1526932084-1120-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com>

Hello Matan,

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 07:48:03PM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote:
> The fail-safe PMD registers to RMV event for each removable sub-device
> port in order to cleanup the sub-device resources and switch the Tx
> sub-device directly when it is plugged-out.
> 
> During removal time, the fail-safe PMD stops and closes the sub-device
> but it doesn't unregister the LSC and RMV callbacks of the sub-device
> port.
> 
> It can lead the callbacks to be called for a port which is no more
> associated with the fail-safe sub-device, because there is not a
> guarantee that a sub-device gets the same port ID for each plug-in
> process. This port, for example, may belong to another sub-device of a
> different fail-safe device.
> 
> Unregister the LSC and RMV callbacks for sub-devices which are not
> used.
> 
> Fixes: 598fb8aec6f6 ("net/failsafe: support device removal")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_ether.c   | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_ops.c     |  5 +++++
>  drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_private.h |  5 +++++
>  3 files changed, 32 insertions(+)
> 
> V2:
> Improve the commit log and add code comments for the new sub-dev fields (Ophir suggestion).
> 
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_ether.c b/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_ether.c
> index 733e95d..2bbee82 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_ether.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_ether.c
> @@ -260,6 +260,7 @@
>  		sdev->state = DEV_ACTIVE;
>  		/* fallthrough */
>  	case DEV_ACTIVE:
> +		failsafe_eth_dev_unregister_callbacks(sdev);
>  		rte_eth_dev_close(PORT_ID(sdev));
>  		sdev->state = DEV_PROBED;
>  		/* fallthrough */
> @@ -321,6 +322,27 @@
>  }
>  
>  void
> +failsafe_eth_dev_unregister_callbacks(struct sub_device *sdev)
> +{
> +	if (sdev == NULL)
> +		return;
> +	if (sdev->rmv_callback) {
> +		rte_eth_dev_callback_unregister(PORT_ID(sdev),
> +					RTE_ETH_EVENT_INTR_RMV,
> +					failsafe_eth_rmv_event_callback,
> +					sdev);
> +		sdev->rmv_callback = 0;

I agree with Ophir here, either the return value should not be ignored,
and rmv_callback should only be set to 0 on success, or a proper
justification (and an accompanying comment) should be given.

The issue I could see is that even on error, there won't be a process to
try again unregistering the callback.

Maybe this could be added in failsafe_dev_remove()? Something like

FOREACH_SUBDEV(sdev, i, dev) {
    if (sdev->rmv_callback && sdev->state <= DEV_PROBED)
        if (rte_eth_dev_callback_unregister(...) == 0)
            sdev->rmv_callback = 0;
    /* same for lsc_callback */
}

Does it make sense to you? Do you think this is necessary, or should we
ignore this?

Thanks,
-- 
Gaëtan Rivet
6WIND

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-05-22  8:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-05-17 18:52 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH " Matan Azrad
2018-05-17 18:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] net/failsafe: fix duplicate event registraton Matan Azrad
2018-05-21 18:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] net/failsafe: fix removed sub-device cleanup Ophir Munk
2018-05-21 19:48 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 " Matan Azrad
2018-05-21 19:48   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] net/failsafe: fix duplicate event registration Matan Azrad
2018-05-22  8:56   ` Gaëtan Rivet [this message]
2018-05-22 10:19     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] net/failsafe: fix removed sub-device cleanup Matan Azrad
2018-05-22 11:53       ` Gaëtan Rivet
2018-05-22 12:09         ` Matan Azrad
2018-05-22 12:38   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 " Matan Azrad
2018-05-22 12:38     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] net/failsafe: fix duplicate event registration Matan Azrad
2018-05-22 13:15       ` Gaëtan Rivet
2018-05-22 13:14     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] net/failsafe: fix removed sub-device cleanup Gaëtan Rivet
2018-05-22 13:59       ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " 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=20180522085656.bx3r3e4c6lz4xwlp@bidouze.vm.6wind.com \
    --to=gaetan.rivet@6wind.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=matan@mellanox.com \
    --cc=ophirmu@mellanox.com \
    --cc=stable@dpdk.org \
    /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).