From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88607D4A for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 08:04:17 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Dec 2018 23:04:16 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,321,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="116454769" Received: from fmsmsx105.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.203]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Dec 2018 23:04:16 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx113.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.7) by FMSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 23:04:16 -0800 Received: from shsmsx101.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.153) by FMSMSX113.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 23:04:15 -0800 Received: from shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.182]) by SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.201]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 15:04:13 +0800 From: "Lu, Wenzhuo" To: "Varghese, Vipin" , "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: AQHUitYuR+yAWQJ4GEyiD5F/jqN8sKVte0+AgAOsIeD//4cagIAAkMsg//9/c4CAAI4FYA== Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 07:04:13 +0000 Message-ID: <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09093FE1183B@shsmsx102.ccr.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> <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D2D4187@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com> <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09093FE117B9@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D2D42DE@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D2D42DE@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] 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 07:04:18 -0000 Hi Vipin, > -----Original Message----- > From: Varghese, Vipin > Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 2:31 PM > To: Lu, Wenzhuo ; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: Yang, Qiming ; Li, Xiaoyun > ; Wu, Jingjing > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 02/20] net/ice: support device > initialization >=20 > 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 > > > understand that it is taken care in future patch. > > > > > > Example patch 2/20 has comment stating adding support in patch 5/20. > > > Then in patch 5/20 it removes the ToDo it is easier to read and > > > understand the flow > > I mean I made a mistake that put the check code in a later patch. > > Actually this code should be put in this patch. I plan to correct it. > > But currently I think we're running out of time. I prefer not > > supporting multi process in this release. > Thanks for clarifying the same. It will helpful to add 'to do or future i= tems' in > cover letter, code comment and release documents which helps reviewers, > early adopters and later maintainers. I'd like to suggest focusing on what we have. Sorry, for many reasons it's = not appropriate to talk too much about we'll do in the future. Like Interna= lly we have a plan, but it keeps changing. Like something is still under in= vestigation... >=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 primary process exit and uninit the resource, the secondary > > > > process is left > > > alone. > > > Since primary is application which reserves the huge page memory > > > (malloc, zmalloc, 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 fea= ture. > > > I am not aware about why other PMD are done in specific way. In my > > > humble opinion, 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 for a better whole picture. > > > I wait for others to comment to this approach. > > > > > > snipped