From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8A3169D4 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 06:33:10 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Dec 2018 21:33:09 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,321,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="107704354" Received: from fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.205]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Dec 2018 21:33:09 -0800 Received: from bgsmsx109.gar.corp.intel.com (10.223.4.211) by fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.205) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 21:33:09 -0800 Received: from bgsmsx101.gar.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.20]) by BGSMSX109.gar.corp.intel.com ([169.254.10.187]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 11:03:06 +0530 From: "Varghese, Vipin" To: "Lu, Wenzhuo" , "dev@dpdk.org" CC: "Yang, Qiming" , "Li, Xiaoyun" , "Wu, Jingjing" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 02/20] net/ice: support device initialization Thread-Index: AQHUitZGtxdD52Cel0muTmHuUQSTKaVt/qlggALQ4wCAAGNvwA== Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 05:33:05 +0000 Message-ID: <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D2D4187@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com> References: <1542956179-80951-1-git-send-email-wenzhuo.lu@intel.com> <1543820821-108122-1-git-send-email-wenzhuo.lu@intel.com> <1543820821-108122-3-git-send-email-wenzhuo.lu@intel.com> <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D2C452C@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com> <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09093FE1167A@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09093FE1167A@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiNjQ1MjIzMTAtODNjMS00NzUwLWE4ZTktNDE2YmVmZTEzOTdmIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoiSTFVajFYOEE2QmxlbW1LNjNkTkRGcVBMbjFBbGlQcDJDMmQyRGRFWllISmJUTnFmMW5xRU1iR2hhOHlxRW1pXC8ifQ== dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.0.400.15 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [10.223.10.10] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 02/20] net/ice: support device initialization 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: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 05:33:11 -0000 snipped > > > + ice_init_controlq_parameter(hw); > > > + > > > + ret =3D ice_init_hw(hw); > > > + if (ret) { > > > + PMD_INIT_LOG(ERR, "Failed to initialize HW"); > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + } > > > > Definition for ice_init_hw in patch 01/20 does not check for primary- > > secondary. Are we allowing secondary to invoke ice_init_hw if it is > > initialized by primary? > It's a patch split issue. We add the check in later patch. Will put it in= this patch in > the new version. Suggestion in current patch if comment is kept it will be easier to underst= and that it is taken care in future patch.=20 Example patch 2/20 has comment stating adding support in patch 5/20. Then i= n patch 5/20 it removes the ToDo it is easier to read and understand the fl= ow >=20 > > > > > + > > > + PMD_INIT_LOG(INFO, "FW %d.%d.%05d API %d.%d", > > > + hw->fw_maj_ver, hw->fw_min_ver, hw->fw_build, > > > + hw->api_maj_ver, hw->api_min_ver); > > > + > > > > Snipped > > > > > + > > > +static int > > > +ice_dev_uninit(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) { > > > + struct ice_hw *hw =3D ICE_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_HW(dev->data- > > > >dev_private); > > > + struct ice_pf *pf =3D ICE_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_PF(dev->data- > > >dev_private); > > > + > > > + ICE_PROC_SECONDARY_CHECK_RET_0; > > > > Should not we check if primary is alive and NIC is used or initialized > > by primary then ' ICE_PROC_SECONDARY_CHECK_RET_0'? > I think it's not a critical issue if the process is terminate abnormally = without uninit. > Comparing with that, I have more concern about this scenario, if the prim= ary > process exit and uninit the resource, the secondary process is left alone= . Since primary is application which reserves the huge page memory (malloc, z= malloc, memzone). So when secondary is killed or stop whole huge pages are = released. I am bit confused what is check suggested affecting? And also > to me it looks not a good solution to change every PMD for this feature.= =20 I am not aware about why other PMD are done in specific way. In my humble o= pinion, if there is a right way let it be used rather than doing other way. I don't > see many PMD support it. Maybe we'd better not support it now and wait fo= r a > better whole picture. I wait for others to comment to this approach.=20 snipped