From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D561BA0547; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 12:38:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFBD141154; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 12:38:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19A6441149 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 12:38:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FBA35C00A0; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 06:38:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 28 Oct 2021 06:38:36 -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=fm2; bh= qcE/BFTvc+PUvgarLCtWBUrYg/bolbIj4b1oN/4iLt0=; b=YZtvnInuvb0uY51T PRnoQY5NCzPPHDSlSpWMRyaRPJ8Of6jCUre+dKwoeSGlQh6wJn7N5pAucSW+mUTO sXjwst5ctVCdnuXS1OIAynG0jW5ivTgyQ/d1pYvn3JWt0YLK55QR0C4xHd4iiKDX 8pUwqmZX6cU0m9S4uLeeNznVtKm4AsGIsCNOQpv6kWCKBK0Ki++6tQHXNbdw65jl EtrDc/Dbz8qDJJveH2vq8uyD2OBQRTLLiUDYE1s741juj0wMf4QpvmCgyevTWRqX 7GzpMKEIegEfekBiGFUx6WVlpp15kOvXVuTLX6CW5rgViwRjJDGgWvi9/ypylJ2N d4PnwA== 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=qcE/BFTvc+PUvgarLCtWBUrYg/bolbIj4b1oN/4iL t0=; b=YTbRbsueNalS61/vNMswBIf2tXStpcdSbVVpXSe4ync70tYQExGFfBm+l CrW4GPqkMeEy2FtiOSpKa+TQhNmGC5I8c7flICcq3poh/EeD7HdogCkgB4n9r54E TWu+u0drR+CNIBhDQ9vd2dFaA7iVDhvZ90BIXZ2DcoQs9ixx62PXYjN/vH2clF5A swqpdA7HAEbLLt2igiPDCfyKJVRROgOjOFXjAEE9wo7rZMhOQlC9UBXkCcY6j87s h78C2nm00XgLXSlzACdoWG2yfFDpy2mjGy/ej2h9PI+UADu9ewM70K8FP5PTDn0D /Y34jlDPydueIiPzGe2E5RzMYnf8A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrvdegvddgvdeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepffdvffejueetleefieeludduuefgteejleevfeekjeefieegheet ffdvkeefgedunecuffhomhgrihhnpeguphgukhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiii gvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhn rdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 06:38:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Ferruh Yigit , Long Li Cc: dev@dpdk.org, matan@nvidia.com, Andrew Rybchenko , Ray Kinsella , Stephen Hemminger Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 12:38:32 +0200 Message-ID: <4398364.iK1UikUNes@thomas> In-Reply-To: <1628c943-58b6-12ff-9827-dc493420e074@intel.com> References: <20211028083457.3024272-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <1628c943-58b6-12ff-9827-dc493420e074@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: promote port ownership API as stable X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 28/10/2021 12:22, Ferruh Yigit: > On 10/28/2021 9:34 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > The port ownership concept was introduced in ethdev in DPDK 18.02. > > Not sure it is used by applications except those using failsafe or netvsc. > > It can also be used by libraries or applications to sort out > > how ports are controlled. > > > > Hiding sub-ports controlled by failsafe or netvsc look to be enough > > justification to promote this API as stable. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon > > There is a defect in the 'rte_eth_dev_owner_delete()', which cause a crash, > it is fixed in my ethdev unit test patch: > https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20210716142800.3853651-8-ferruh.yigit@intel.com/ > > I think we should get the fix first. I think such fix should be sent separately. OK to get the fix first. > And the crash not detected/reported until now makes me think API is still > not used much, I wonder if we should wait a little more to mature them. It is not a surprise that the delete operation is not used much. But the set operation is used. I am not sure about waiting more. I have no strong opinion. > Also only internal user of the API is 'drivers/net/netvsc', I wonder if > PMD detect the crash? Question for Long Li?