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 420CCA0C40;
Tue, 8 Jun 2021 17:42:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD0C640689;
Tue, 8 Jun 2021 17:42:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail-pg1-f174.google.com (mail-pg1-f174.google.com
[209.85.215.174])
by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 379B14067A
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 17:42:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-pg1-f174.google.com with SMTP id i34so10397516pgl.9
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 08:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=l8MWf+dB7NXdJ0BXB5UmaxiEm8PGA1T4CSwFH0Xc/C4=;
b=IftxJ90RmDmIbGfCCpcpf+k/ku5CsO2sGZJnEx7IsInDTxRkjrl6u8NBtVHShkpB2d
dxvmCg5xs40TLnTCtAuw/5ilgpEY0LHSJ3HsTG/bbgI7CdZchKLrv9oGRBP082Z85kAg
hJDEmYpM1RxeTtq6zNaPdq7DQ5GODt/re8w9vyFpsf/fgU6umHznl7UIvhIO70P+PBOg
JiAs9wWktsxV8t00FCfiS70E3ZqhzNAJherlAVJbHKCwKrMGGvZxTaQQJHDS7/D63ZSJ
p1D9XY4Wh7T3zcCKY2ENr7ybZL/2eDj2PohdMqTc5KMOQ2zmdNPv8smTsI03sHxUKR26
Vdig==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to
:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=l8MWf+dB7NXdJ0BXB5UmaxiEm8PGA1T4CSwFH0Xc/C4=;
b=lyw1xdCeLTwsH3Rodf6AB/kth4vbxpAvrqgZ7Yf9sLJDaDG71uwD7nJtyv9cpPg/xF
ik2kgR8Tt2aISuHeo+Ou7McPpPkxdSY14BuWtLdccYamd8O+lvXabS5ICEB9v0/Ik3UP
SyWPwceUNVzf2kAaPixRwZxQ2c74LNQf+8Pl0dI5uYzRNxiTpXeMVZ6s3WCnRA3Pthau
9CEdzQhSgrCq5qLlSNH/2T9YHCxy2B3J36LiDYqTzoKsH3jo3l/X9VJqE9ysdXKVawle
hSdutaZDxB0PjbtktdHrkWRmk7LofL6tN1EGpAb2G1e02An8JvEwpPG3L1+b8Suo9cqC
M7Ew==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530EHbNZmbOoNNSF/UqTtjZP9OTvzObsQ3SoeS3wjne+WcEk2BTT
QjSlyrTT2dl3WnLkJyys4b0Ybw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxomK3D83F5N59PK9ZNiV+7Z5Tia3bGQjPuA/1Ub8QylZCtT6kjev6BkeC+zhc5ITVVHciSIw==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:3543:: with SMTP id c64mr22875440pga.403.1623166939211;
Tue, 08 Jun 2021 08:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.local (76-14-218-44.or.wavecable.com. [76.14.218.44])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s13sm6359183pgi.36.2021.06.08.08.42.18
(version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256);
Tue, 08 Jun 2021 08:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 08:42:10 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, dev@dpdk.org, matan@mellanox.com,
Gaetan Rivet <grive@u256.net>
Message-ID: <20210608084210.73d05f60@hermes.local>
In-Reply-To: <e20cd33e-f44d-0cc9-67d7-43668c5fd866@oktetlabs.ru>
References: <20210315192722.35490-1-stephen@networkplumber.org>
<20210315192722.35490-3-stephen@networkplumber.org>
<6747934.v7ilQdk43l@thomas>
<e20cd33e-f44d-0cc9-67d7-43668c5fd866@oktetlabs.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] net/failsafe: fix primary/secondary mutex
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
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 11:00:37 +0300
Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru> wrote:
> On 4/19/21 8:08 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > About the title, better to speak about multi-process,
> > it is less confusing than primary/secondary.
> >
> > 15/03/2021 20:27, Stephen Hemminger:
> >> Set mutex used in failsafe driver to protect when used by
> >> both primary and secondary process. Without this fix, the failsafe
> >> lock is not really locking when there are multiple secondary processes.
> >>
> >> Bugzilla ID: 662
> >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> >> Fixes: 655fcd68c7d2 ("net/failsafe: fix hotplug races")
> >> Cc: matan@mellanox.com
> >
> > The correct order for above lines is:
> >
> > Bugzilla ID: 662
> > Fixes: 655fcd68c7d2 ("net/failsafe: fix hotplug races")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> >
> >> ---
> >> --- a/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe.c
> >> @@ -140,6 +140,11 @@ fs_mutex_init(struct fs_priv *priv)
> >> ERROR("Cannot initiate mutex attributes - %s", strerror(ret));
> >> return ret;
> >> }
> >> + /* Allow mutex to protect primary/secondary */
> >> + ret = pthread_mutexattr_setpshared(&attr, PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED);
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + ERROR("Cannot set mutex shared - %s", strerror(ret));
> >
> > Why not returning an error here?
>
> +1
>
> I think it would be safer to return an error here.
Ok but it never happens.