Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: fix rte_eth_dev_owner_unset

[Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 14:55:56 +0100
Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:

> On 8/14/2018 8:46 PM, Matan Azrad wrote:
> > Hi Stephen
> > 
> > From: Stephen Hemminger  
> >> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 05:52:20 +0000
> >> Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com> wrote:
> >>  
> >>> Hi Stephen
> >>>
> >>> From: Stephen Hemminger  
> >>>> The rte_eth_dev_owner_unset function is unusable because it always
> >>>> returns -EINVAL. This is because the magic (unowned) value is
> >>>> flagged as not valid.
> >>>>  
> >>>
> >>> It's OK to raise an error when you do unset for unowned device.
> >>> It means that unset owner should be called for owned device.
> >>>  
> >>
> >> Original code was broken. The following would always fail.
> >>
> >> 	rte_eth_dev_owner_new(&owner.id);
> >> 	sprintf(owner.name, "example");
> >> 	rte_eth_dev_owner_set(port_id, &owner);
> >> 	rte_eth_dev_owner_unset(port_id, owner.id);
> >>
> >> That is because of:
> >> 	rte_eth_dev_owner_unset(port_id, owner_id)
> >> 		_rte_eth_dev_owner_set(port_id, owner_id, &new_owner)
> >> << new_owner.id == RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER (0)
> >>
> >>
> >> 	if (!rte_eth_is_valid_owner_id(new_owner->id) &&  <<
> >> new_owner->id == RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER (which is flagged as invalid)
> >> 	    !rte_eth_is_valid_owner_id(old_owner_id))
> >> 		return -EINVAL;
> >>  
> > 
> > But both should be invalid the new owner and the old owner(&&) to raise an EINVAL error.
> > 
> > In the aforementioned check above the old owner should be valid.  
> 
> It looks rte_eth_dev_owner_unset() works, updating patch as rejected.
> 

The issue was the incorrect log message, addressed in later patches.