From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD8D1B129 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:13:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7839121FC3; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:13:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:13:50 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=0X1BVn1LmxjH4gD+MFywVDMxLQy9LtXv5IMpgIJYILQ=; b=CT2k9Kv1sMwv evdBEYI0wP2Dk8h24XJ3lm0mo+jB0kJEtcPT7X4V4V0tg7vT1a4GTgo/LsKmYFdQ YecJFTd0JMCcH1B1VHdMUNimvP7g7JifmZpkoKUG/1+5m+5tF627+4G+77QlO9Kd lg1vzMdsaTqJ08Ht9+wEpujg1R5aA50= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=0X1BVn1LmxjH4gD+MFywVDMxLQy9LtXv5IMpgIJYI LQ=; b=fxonjd8tg+Jy9byfmpJEckkSkDd8bMFN9KV2id0OXsl2zjEE6Fed3kCBn MZZfM0RnChE/6lBD8b+v8slk5sDNZhwvhr8/55BfizBsOZoptpj//BTFkkUK+TMd SXeuRbJH/fqbqVA7b9RgvLFVVhlDjGYuaLUV+GTwhGEi3eOeo5wB9FgGA13zXCvp oZQpEPPU3IJqgEU49tfBd/3/G9IhNaWxR/47kyL+q4JRXJLQRopuKtggzLez/TeD UWisjvKpUdrp+sK+2RSsxkhbb+G+IlMNNdABu0uZkRtxIOGKZSfhhaEO4dGn5VrH sRtdNMp+Hmsy9jGY4nMCZdwtNwlrQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 00216E48A7; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:13:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Iremonger, Bernard" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "gaetan.rivet@6wind.com" , "ophirmu@mellanox.com" , "wisamm@mellanox.com" , "Yigit, Ferruh" , "arybchenko@solarflare.com" Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:13:50 +0200 Message-ID: <2058868.Os1dUGhjLa@xps> In-Reply-To: <3243790.6gorE4o5SW@xps> References: <20181007222554.4886-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <8CEF83825BEC744B83065625E567D7C260D15558@IRSMSX107.ger.corp.intel.com> <3243790.6gorE4o5SW@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 7/7] app/testpmd: check not detaching device twice X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 12:13:51 -0000 23/10/2018 14:03, Thomas Monjalon: > 23/10/2018 12:01, Iremonger, Bernard: > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > > > The command "port detach" is removing the EAL rte_device of the ethdev > > > port specified as parameter. > > > > > > After detaching, the pointer, which maps a port to its device, is resetted. This > > > > Typo: "resetted" should be "reset" > > > > > way, it is possible to check whether a port is still associated to a (not > > > removed) device. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon > > > --- > > > app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++--- > > > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c index > > > 14647fa19..d5998fddc 100644 > > > --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c > > > +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c > > > @@ -2353,8 +2353,17 @@ setup_attached_port(portid_t pi) void > > > detach_port(portid_t port_id) { > > > + struct rte_device *dev; > > > + portid_t sibling; > > > + > > > printf("Removing a device...\n"); > > > > The functionality of the detach_port() function has changed now to > > removing a device, should the function name be changed to reflect > > the new functionality. > > No it doesn't change, it has always removed the rte_device of the port. > But the naming is a bit strange, I agree. > I just changed the log to make it a bit clearer. > > > How about detach_device() instead of detach detach_port(). > > The strange thing with testpmd is that every commands take a port id. > The rte_device is hidden in testpmd. > So the detach command is detaching the underlying device of the port, > and all its sibling ports of course. > > What about detach_device_of_port() ? Or detach_port_device()? > [...] > > > - if (rte_dev_remove(rte_eth_devices[port_id].device) != 0) { > > > + if (rte_dev_remove(dev) != 0) { > > > TESTPMD_LOG(ERR, "Failed to detach port %u\n", port_id); > > > > Should the log message be ( ERR "Failed to detach device %s\n", dev->name) ? > > Yes! > > [...] > > > - printf("Port %u is detached. Now total ports is %d\n", > > > - port_id, nb_ports); > > > > How about printf("Device %s is detached, Now total ports is %d\n" > > dev->name, nb_ports); > > The issue is that we cannot get the device name after detach. > I can reword it differently: > Device of port %u is detached, Now total ports is %d > > > >