* [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: Fix port validation code of "port stop all" command
@ 2015-03-05 7:30 Tetsuya Mukawa
2015-03-05 13:33 ` Qiu, Michael
2015-03-06 13:44 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Tetsuya Mukawa @ 2015-03-05 7:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dev
When "port stop all" is executed, the command doesn't work as it should
because of wrong port validation. The patch fixes this issue.
Reported-by: Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa@igel.co.jp>
---
app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
index 61291be..bb65342 100644
--- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
+++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
@@ -1484,7 +1484,7 @@ stop_port(portid_t pid)
printf("Stopping ports...\n");
FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
- if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
+ if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
continue;
port = &ports[pi];
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: Fix port validation code of "port stop all" command
2015-03-05 7:30 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: Fix port validation code of "port stop all" command Tetsuya Mukawa
@ 2015-03-05 13:33 ` Qiu, Michael
2015-03-05 13:38 ` Qiu, Michael
2015-03-06 13:53 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2015-03-06 13:44 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
1 sibling, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Qiu, Michael @ 2015-03-05 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tetsuya Mukawa, dev
Hi, Tetsuya and Pablo
This is not a full fix, I have generate the full fix patch two days ago,
See below:
diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c
index 49be819..ec53923 100644
--- a/app/test-pmd/config.c
+++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c
@@ -384,6 +384,9 @@ port_infos_display(portid_t port_id)
int
port_id_is_invalid(portid_t port_id, enum print_warning warning)
{
+ if (port_id == (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
+ return 0;
+
if (ports[port_id].enabled)
return 0;
diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
index e556b4c..1c4c651 100644
--- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
+++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
@@ -1326,6 +1326,9 @@ start_port(portid_t pid)
return -1;
}
+ if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
+ return 0;
+
if (init_fwd_streams() < 0) {
printf("Fail from init_fwd_streams()\n");
return -1;
@@ -1482,10 +1485,14 @@ stop_port(portid_t pid)
dcb_test = 0;
dcb_config = 0;
}
+
+ if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
+ return;
+
printf("Stopping ports...\n");
FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
- if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
+ if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
continue;
port = &ports[pi];
@@ -1517,10 +1524,13 @@ close_port(portid_t pid)
return;
}
+ if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
+ return;
+
printf("Closing ports...\n");
FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
- if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
+ if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
continue;
port = &ports[pi];
--
1.9.3
Thanks,
Michael
On 3/5/2015 3:31 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
> When "port stop all" is executed, the command doesn't work as it should
> because of wrong port validation. The patch fixes this issue.
>
> Reported-by: Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa@igel.co.jp>
> ---
> app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> index 61291be..bb65342 100644
> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> @@ -1484,7 +1484,7 @@ stop_port(portid_t pid)
> printf("Stopping ports...\n");
>
> FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
> - if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
> + if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
> continue;
>
> port = &ports[pi];
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: Fix port validation code of "port stop all" command
2015-03-05 13:33 ` Qiu, Michael
@ 2015-03-05 13:38 ` Qiu, Michael
2015-03-06 13:53 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Qiu, Michael @ 2015-03-05 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tetsuya Mukawa, dev
On 3/5/2015 9:33 PM, Qiu, Michael wrote:
> Hi, Tetsuya and Pablo
> This is not a full fix, I have generate the full fix patch two days ago,
> See below:
>
> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c
> index 49be819..ec53923 100644
> --- a/app/test-pmd/config.c
> +++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c
> @@ -384,6 +384,9 @@ port_infos_display(portid_t port_id)
> int
> port_id_is_invalid(portid_t port_id, enum print_warning warning)
> {
> + if (port_id == (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
> + return 0;
> +
> if (ports[port_id].enabled)
> return 0;
>
> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> index e556b4c..1c4c651 100644
> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> @@ -1326,6 +1326,9 @@ start_port(portid_t pid)
> return -1;
> }
>
> + if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
> + return 0;
> +
> if (init_fwd_streams() < 0) {
> printf("Fail from init_fwd_streams()\n");
> return -1;
> @@ -1482,10 +1485,14 @@ stop_port(portid_t pid)
> dcb_test = 0;
> dcb_config = 0;
> }
> +
> + if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
> + return;
> +
> printf("Stopping ports...\n");
>
> FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
> - if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
> + if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
> continue;
>
> port = &ports[pi];
> @@ -1517,10 +1524,13 @@ close_port(portid_t pid)
> return;
> }
>
> + if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
> + return;
> +
> printf("Closing ports...\n");
>
> FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
> - if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
> + if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
> continue;
>
> port = &ports[pi];
This diff is based on:
[PATCH] app/test-pmd: Fix log issue without nic binded
Thanks,
Michael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: Fix port validation code of "port stop all" command
2015-03-05 7:30 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: Fix port validation code of "port stop all" command Tetsuya Mukawa
2015-03-05 13:33 ` Qiu, Michael
@ 2015-03-06 13:44 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: De Lara Guarch, Pablo @ 2015-03-06 13:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tetsuya Mukawa, dev
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tetsuya Mukawa [mailto:mukawa@igel.co.jp]
> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 7:30 AM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: De Lara Guarch, Pablo; Tetsuya Mukawa
> Subject: [PATCH] testpmd: Fix port validation code of "port stop all"
> command
>
> When "port stop all" is executed, the command doesn't work as it should
> because of wrong port validation. The patch fixes this issue.
>
> Reported-by: Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa@igel.co.jp>
> ---
> app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> index 61291be..bb65342 100644
> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> @@ -1484,7 +1484,7 @@ stop_port(portid_t pid)
> printf("Stopping ports...\n");
>
> FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
> - if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
> + if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
> continue;
>
> port = &ports[pi];
> --
> 1.9.1
Acked-by: Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: Fix port validation code of "port stop all" command
2015-03-05 13:33 ` Qiu, Michael
2015-03-05 13:38 ` Qiu, Michael
@ 2015-03-06 13:53 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2015-03-09 2:22 ` Tetsuya Mukawa
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: De Lara Guarch, Pablo @ 2015-03-06 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Qiu, Michael, Tetsuya Mukawa, dev
Hi Michael,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Qiu, Michael
> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 1:33 PM
> To: Tetsuya Mukawa; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: Fix port validation code of "port
> stop all" command
>
> Hi, Tetsuya and Pablo
> This is not a full fix, I have generate the full fix patch two days ago,
Sorry I did not see this earlier. Did you upstream this patch already?
I acked Tetsuya's patch, as it was simple and works, but I cannot find
this one.
Thanks,
Pablo
> See below:
>
> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c
> index 49be819..ec53923 100644
> --- a/app/test-pmd/config.c
> +++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c
> @@ -384,6 +384,9 @@ port_infos_display(portid_t port_id)
> int
> port_id_is_invalid(portid_t port_id, enum print_warning warning)
> {
> + if (port_id == (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
> + return 0;
> +
> if (ports[port_id].enabled)
> return 0;
>
> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> index e556b4c..1c4c651 100644
> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> @@ -1326,6 +1326,9 @@ start_port(portid_t pid)
> return -1;
> }
>
> + if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
> + return 0;
> +
> if (init_fwd_streams() < 0) {
> printf("Fail from init_fwd_streams()\n");
> return -1;
> @@ -1482,10 +1485,14 @@ stop_port(portid_t pid)
> dcb_test = 0;
> dcb_config = 0;
> }
> +
> + if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
> + return;
> +
> printf("Stopping ports...\n");
>
> FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
> - if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
> + if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
> continue;
>
> port = &ports[pi];
> @@ -1517,10 +1524,13 @@ close_port(portid_t pid)
> return;
> }
>
> + if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
> + return;
> +
> printf("Closing ports...\n");
>
> FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
> - if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
> + if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
> continue;
>
> port = &ports[pi];
> --
> 1.9.3
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
> On 3/5/2015 3:31 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
> > When "port stop all" is executed, the command doesn't work as it should
> > because of wrong port validation. The patch fixes this issue.
> >
> > Reported-by: Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa@igel.co.jp>
> > ---
> > app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> > index 61291be..bb65342 100644
> > --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> > +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> > @@ -1484,7 +1484,7 @@ stop_port(portid_t pid)
> > printf("Stopping ports...\n");
> >
> > FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
> > - if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
> > + if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
> > continue;
> >
> > port = &ports[pi];
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: Fix port validation code of "port stop all" command
2015-03-06 13:53 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
@ 2015-03-09 2:22 ` Tetsuya Mukawa
2015-03-09 3:49 ` Qiu, Michael
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Tetsuya Mukawa @ 2015-03-09 2:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo, Qiu, Michael, dev
On 2015/03/06 22:53, De Lara Guarch, Pablo wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Qiu, Michael
>> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 1:33 PM
>> To: Tetsuya Mukawa; dev@dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: Fix port validation code of "port
>> stop all" command
>>
>> Hi, Tetsuya and Pablo
>> This is not a full fix, I have generate the full fix patch two days ago,
Hi Michel,
I am sorry for late replying, and thanks for your work.
> Sorry I did not see this earlier. Did you upstream this patch already?
> I acked Tetsuya's patch, as it was simple and works, but I cannot find
> this one.
>
> Thanks,
> Pablo
>
>> See below:
>>
>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c
>> index 49be819..ec53923 100644
>> --- a/app/test-pmd/config.c
>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c
>> @@ -384,6 +384,9 @@ port_infos_display(portid_t port_id)
>> int
>> port_id_is_invalid(portid_t port_id, enum print_warning warning)
>> {
>> + if (port_id == (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
>> + return 0;
>> +
I am not clearly sure that we need to add above 'if statement'.
>> if (ports[port_id].enabled)
>> return 0;
>>
>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>> index e556b4c..1c4c651 100644
>> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>> @@ -1326,6 +1326,9 @@ start_port(portid_t pid)
>> return -1;
>> }
>>
>> + if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
>> + return 0;
>> +
Same as above.
>> if (init_fwd_streams() < 0) {
>> printf("Fail from init_fwd_streams()\n");
>> return -1;
>> @@ -1482,10 +1485,14 @@ stop_port(portid_t pid)
>> dcb_test = 0;
>> dcb_config = 0;
>> }
>> +
>> + if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
>> + return;
>> +
Same as above.
>> printf("Stopping ports...\n");
>>
>> FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
>> - if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
>> + if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
>> continue;
>>
>> port = &ports[pi];
>> @@ -1517,10 +1524,13 @@ close_port(portid_t pid)
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> + if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
>> + return;
>> +
Same as above.
>> printf("Closing ports...\n");
>>
>> FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
>> - if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
>> + if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
>> continue;
>>
>> port = &ports[pi];
>> --
>> 1.9.3
FOREACH_PORT() returns valid ports, so is it not enough to check like above?
I am not clearly understand which case we need to add above extra if
statements.
Could you please describe?
But I agree we cannot use my previous patch.
We need to fix not only stop_port() but also close_port() like start_port().
Thanks,
Tetsuya
>> Thanks,
>> Michael
>>
>> On 3/5/2015 3:31 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
>>> When "port stop all" is executed, the command doesn't work as it should
>>> because of wrong port validation. The patch fixes this issue.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa@igel.co.jp>
>>> ---
>>> app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>> index 61291be..bb65342 100644
>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>> @@ -1484,7 +1484,7 @@ stop_port(portid_t pid)
>>> printf("Stopping ports...\n");
>>>
>>> FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
>>> - if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
>>> + if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
>>> continue;
>>>
>>> port = &ports[pi];
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: Fix port validation code of "port stop all" command
2015-03-09 2:22 ` Tetsuya Mukawa
@ 2015-03-09 3:49 ` Qiu, Michael
2015-03-09 5:21 ` Tetsuya Mukawa
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Qiu, Michael @ 2015-03-09 3:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tetsuya Mukawa, De Lara Guarch, Pablo, dev
On 3/9/2015 10:22 AM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
> On 2015/03/06 22:53, De Lara Guarch, Pablo wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Qiu, Michael
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 1:33 PM
>>> To: Tetsuya Mukawa; dev@dpdk.org
>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: Fix port validation code of "port
>>> stop all" command
>>>
>>> Hi, Tetsuya and Pablo
>>> This is not a full fix, I have generate the full fix patch two days ago,
> Hi Michel,
>
> I am sorry for late replying, and thanks for your work.
>
>> Sorry I did not see this earlier. Did you upstream this patch already?
>> I acked Tetsuya's patch, as it was simple and works, but I cannot find
>> this one.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pablo
>>
>>> See below:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c
>>> index 49be819..ec53923 100644
>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/config.c
>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c
>>> @@ -384,6 +384,9 @@ port_infos_display(portid_t port_id)
>>> int
>>> port_id_is_invalid(portid_t port_id, enum print_warning warning)
>>> {
>>> + if (port_id == (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
> I am not clearly sure that we need to add above 'if statement'.
Because some times RTE_PORT_ALL will pass to port start/stop/close, but
the check will be invalid.
Actually, we should see it as valid, then all port valid check will work
for start/stop/close action
>
>>> if (ports[port_id].enabled)
>>> return 0;
>>>
>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>> index e556b4c..1c4c651 100644
>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>> @@ -1326,6 +1326,9 @@ start_port(portid_t pid)
>>> return -1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> + if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
> Same as above.
>
>>> if (init_fwd_streams() < 0) {
>>> printf("Fail from init_fwd_streams()\n");
>>> return -1;
>>> @@ -1482,10 +1485,14 @@ stop_port(portid_t pid)
>>> dcb_test = 0;
>>> dcb_config = 0;
>>> }
>>> +
>>> + if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
>>> + return;
>>> +
> Same as above.
>
>>> printf("Stopping ports...\n");
>>>
>>> FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
>>> - if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
>>> + if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
>>> continue;
>>>
>>> port = &ports[pi];
>>> @@ -1517,10 +1524,13 @@ close_port(portid_t pid)
>>> return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> + if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
>>> + return;
>>> +
> Same as above.
>
>>> printf("Closing ports...\n");
>>>
>>> FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
>>> - if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
>>> + if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
>>> continue;
>>>
>>> port = &ports[pi];
>>> --
>>> 1.9.3
> FOREACH_PORT() returns valid ports, so is it not enough to check like above?
> I am not clearly understand which case we need to add above extra if
> statements.
> Could you please describe?
Yes, just consider this situation, the valid port number are [0, 1],
but you try to to stop prot number 2, what will happen?
Noting will be show, at least we need an error log.
So it must be check.
Thanks,
Michael
> But I agree we cannot use my previous patch.
> We need to fix not only stop_port() but also close_port() like start_port().
>
> Thanks,
> Tetsuya
>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> On 3/5/2015 3:31 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
>>>> When "port stop all" is executed, the command doesn't work as it should
>>>> because of wrong port validation. The patch fixes this issue.
>>>>
>>>> Reported-by: Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa@igel.co.jp>
>>>> ---
>>>> app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>>> index 61291be..bb65342 100644
>>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>>> @@ -1484,7 +1484,7 @@ stop_port(portid_t pid)
>>>> printf("Stopping ports...\n");
>>>>
>>>> FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
>>>> - if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
>>>> + if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
>>>> continue;
>>>>
>>>> port = &ports[pi];
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: Fix port validation code of "port stop all" command
2015-03-09 3:49 ` Qiu, Michael
@ 2015-03-09 5:21 ` Tetsuya Mukawa
2015-03-09 6:01 ` Qiu, Michael
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Tetsuya Mukawa @ 2015-03-09 5:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Qiu, Michael, De Lara Guarch, Pablo, dev
On 2015/03/09 12:49, Qiu, Michael wrote:
> On 3/9/2015 10:22 AM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
>> On 2015/03/06 22:53, De Lara Guarch, Pablo wrote:
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Qiu, Michael
>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 1:33 PM
>>>> To: Tetsuya Mukawa; dev@dpdk.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: Fix port validation code of "port
>>>> stop all" command
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Tetsuya and Pablo
>>>> This is not a full fix, I have generate the full fix patch two days ago,
>> Hi Michel,
>>
>> I am sorry for late replying, and thanks for your work.
>>
>>> Sorry I did not see this earlier. Did you upstream this patch already?
>>> I acked Tetsuya's patch, as it was simple and works, but I cannot find
>>> this one.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pablo
>>>
>>>> See below:
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c
>>>> index 49be819..ec53923 100644
>>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/config.c
>>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c
>>>> @@ -384,6 +384,9 @@ port_infos_display(portid_t port_id)
>>>> int
>>>> port_id_is_invalid(portid_t port_id, enum print_warning warning)
>>>> {
>>>> + if (port_id == (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +
>> I am not clearly sure that we need to add above 'if statement'.
> Because some times RTE_PORT_ALL will pass to port start/stop/close, but
> the check will be invalid.
>
> Actually, we should see it as valid, then all port valid check will work
> for start/stop/close action
>
>>>> if (ports[port_id].enabled)
>>>> return 0;
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>>> index e556b4c..1c4c651 100644
>>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>>> @@ -1326,6 +1326,9 @@ start_port(portid_t pid)
>>>> return -1;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> + if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +
>> Same as above.
>>
>>>> if (init_fwd_streams() < 0) {
>>>> printf("Fail from init_fwd_streams()\n");
>>>> return -1;
>>>> @@ -1482,10 +1485,14 @@ stop_port(portid_t pid)
>>>> dcb_test = 0;
>>>> dcb_config = 0;
>>>> }
>>>> +
>>>> + if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
>>>> + return;
>>>> +
>> Same as above.
>>
>>>> printf("Stopping ports...\n");
>>>>
>>>> FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
>>>> - if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
>>>> + if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
>>>> continue;
>>>>
>>>> port = &ports[pi];
>>>> @@ -1517,10 +1524,13 @@ close_port(portid_t pid)
>>>> return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> + if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
>>>> + return;
>>>> +
>> Same as above.
>>
>>>> printf("Closing ports...\n");
>>>>
>>>> FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
>>>> - if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
>>>> + if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
>>>> continue;
>>>>
>>>> port = &ports[pi];
>>>> --
>>>> 1.9.3
>> FOREACH_PORT() returns valid ports, so is it not enough to check like above?
>> I am not clearly understand which case we need to add above extra if
>> statements.
>> Could you please describe?
> Yes, just consider this situation, the valid port number are [0, 1],
> but you try to to stop prot number 2, what will happen?
>
> Noting will be show, at least we need an error log.
>
> So it must be check.
Hi Michael,
Thanks, I've understood it.
Have you already submitted it as patch?
I could not find it in patchwork.
I will send an ack to your patch.
Thanks,
Tetsuya
> Thanks,
> Michael
>> But I agree we cannot use my previous patch.
>> We need to fix not only stop_port() but also close_port() like start_port().
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tetsuya
>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>> On 3/5/2015 3:31 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
>>>>> When "port stop all" is executed, the command doesn't work as it should
>>>>> because of wrong port validation. The patch fixes this issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reported-by: Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa@igel.co.jp>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 2 +-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>>>> index 61291be..bb65342 100644
>>>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>>>> @@ -1484,7 +1484,7 @@ stop_port(portid_t pid)
>>>>> printf("Stopping ports...\n");
>>>>>
>>>>> FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
>>>>> - if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
>>>>> + if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
>>>>> continue;
>>>>>
>>>>> port = &ports[pi];
>>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: Fix port validation code of "port stop all" command
2015-03-09 5:21 ` Tetsuya Mukawa
@ 2015-03-09 6:01 ` Qiu, Michael
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Qiu, Michael @ 2015-03-09 6:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tetsuya Mukawa, De Lara Guarch, Pablo, dev
On 3/9/2015 1:21 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
> On 2015/03/09 12:49, Qiu, Michael wrote:
>> On 3/9/2015 10:22 AM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
>>> On 2015/03/06 22:53, De Lara Guarch, Pablo wrote:
>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Qiu, Michael
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 1:33 PM
>>>>> To: Tetsuya Mukawa; dev@dpdk.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: Fix port validation code of "port
>>>>> stop all" command
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi, Tetsuya and Pablo
>>>>> This is not a full fix, I have generate the full fix patch two days ago,
>>> Hi Michel,
>>>
>>> I am sorry for late replying, and thanks for your work.
>>>
>>>> Sorry I did not see this earlier. Did you upstream this patch already?
>>>> I acked Tetsuya's patch, as it was simple and works, but I cannot find
>>>> this one.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Pablo
>>>>
>>>>> See below:
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c
>>>>> index 49be819..ec53923 100644
>>>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/config.c
>>>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c
>>>>> @@ -384,6 +384,9 @@ port_infos_display(portid_t port_id)
>>>>> int
>>>>> port_id_is_invalid(portid_t port_id, enum print_warning warning)
>>>>> {
>>>>> + if (port_id == (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +
>>> I am not clearly sure that we need to add above 'if statement'.
>> Because some times RTE_PORT_ALL will pass to port start/stop/close, but
>> the check will be invalid.
>>
>> Actually, we should see it as valid, then all port valid check will work
>> for start/stop/close action
>>
>>>>> if (ports[port_id].enabled)
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>>>> index e556b4c..1c4c651 100644
>>>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>>>> @@ -1326,6 +1326,9 @@ start_port(portid_t pid)
>>>>> return -1;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> + if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +
>>> Same as above.
>>>
>>>>> if (init_fwd_streams() < 0) {
>>>>> printf("Fail from init_fwd_streams()\n");
>>>>> return -1;
>>>>> @@ -1482,10 +1485,14 @@ stop_port(portid_t pid)
>>>>> dcb_test = 0;
>>>>> dcb_config = 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
>>>>> + return;
>>>>> +
>>> Same as above.
>>>
>>>>> printf("Stopping ports...\n");
>>>>>
>>>>> FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
>>>>> - if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
>>>>> + if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
>>>>> continue;
>>>>>
>>>>> port = &ports[pi];
>>>>> @@ -1517,10 +1524,13 @@ close_port(portid_t pid)
>>>>> return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> + if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
>>>>> + return;
>>>>> +
>>> Same as above.
>>>
>>>>> printf("Closing ports...\n");
>>>>>
>>>>> FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
>>>>> - if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
>>>>> + if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
>>>>> continue;
>>>>>
>>>>> port = &ports[pi];
>>>>> --
>>>>> 1.9.3
>>> FOREACH_PORT() returns valid ports, so is it not enough to check like above?
>>> I am not clearly understand which case we need to add above extra if
>>> statements.
>>> Could you please describe?
>> Yes, just consider this situation, the valid port number are [0, 1],
>> but you try to to stop prot number 2, what will happen?
>>
>> Noting will be show, at least we need an error log.
>>
>> So it must be check.
> Hi Michael,
>
> Thanks, I've understood it.
> Have you already submitted it as patch?
> I could not find it in patchwork.
> I will send an ack to your patch.
I have not send yet,
I will send out now and add will add you in cc list.
Thanks,
Michael
> Thanks,
> Tetsuya
>
>> Thanks,
>> Michael
>>> But I agree we cannot use my previous patch.
>>> We need to fix not only stop_port() but also close_port() like start_port().
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tetsuya
>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/5/2015 3:31 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
>>>>>> When "port stop all" is executed, the command doesn't work as it should
>>>>>> because of wrong port validation. The patch fixes this issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reported-by: Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa@igel.co.jp>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 2 +-
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>>>>> index 61291be..bb65342 100644
>>>>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>>>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>>>>> @@ -1484,7 +1484,7 @@ stop_port(portid_t pid)
>>>>>> printf("Stopping ports...\n");
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
>>>>>> - if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
>>>>>> + if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
>>>>>> continue;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> port = &ports[pi];
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-03-09 6:01 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-03-05 7:30 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: Fix port validation code of "port stop all" command Tetsuya Mukawa
2015-03-05 13:33 ` Qiu, Michael
2015-03-05 13:38 ` Qiu, Michael
2015-03-06 13:53 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2015-03-09 2:22 ` Tetsuya Mukawa
2015-03-09 3:49 ` Qiu, Michael
2015-03-09 5:21 ` Tetsuya Mukawa
2015-03-09 6:01 ` Qiu, Michael
2015-03-06 13:44 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).