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 EDCDD461AF; Thu, 6 Feb 2025 22:06:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BD4240EE2; Thu, 6 Feb 2025 22:06:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp.eurecom.fr (smtp.eurecom.fr [193.55.113.210]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D2D2402BC for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2025 22:06:00 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=eurecom.fr; i=@eurecom.fr; q=dns/txt; s=default; t=1738875958; x=1770411958; h=from:in-reply-to:references:date:cc:to:mime-version: message-id:subject:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7Kdh0Rkd/wJeEo7xxA4PfapIV65T3FpoySrrbbfqDhk=; b=Mj4Zf7rJ85OJ78/VXzS+HWIfsdOfu/FWU3oTv63b/qrV6IaJ/nJ27hxp hS1Wbmg5vHgKPTHk6eO5Bev6gE/8b646cbjs/TUgv1i4KsuyOmXdUTza5 VuXMlmtoRyr1GtFec5N2sjULmO50S+M640cGbCVAQAz0tDYqw9t9pJJD6 0=; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: iCi6qKz6Sg+skVFsFq6Zzg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: oBhFZKKvS/amnEZ3Baj7Dw== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.13,265,1732575600"; d="scan'208";a="28888153" Received: from quovadis.eurecom.fr ([10.3.2.233]) by drago1i.eurecom.fr with ESMTP; 06 Feb 2025 22:05:58 +0100 From: "Ariel Otilibili-Anieli" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Forward: 88.183.119.157 References: <11eea5-679d0980-397-2b71eb40@59612471> Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2025 22:05:59 +0100 Cc: dev@dpdk.org, david.marchand@redhat.com, chenbox@nvidia.com To: "Maxime Coquelin" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <786c0-67a52400-aef-318b4ec@175281925> Subject: =?utf-8?q?Re=3A?= [PATCH] =?utf-8?q?vhost=3A?= fix VDUSE devices registration User-Agent: SOGoMail 5.11.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 Hi Maxime, On Wednesday, February 05, 2025 22:18 CET, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > Hi Ariel, >=20 >=20 > Not really :) > Without your patch, ret was assigned by the pthread=5Fmutex=5Finit() = return, > so always 0. With your patch, this assignment is removed so ret will > always be -1 for VDUSE devices. >=20 > So before your patch, VDUSE devices registration was functional, with > your patch it breaks systematically. >=20 > We don't want to backport my patch to LTS that aren't imapcted, so > tagging your patch as the one introducing the regression is the right > thing to do. :) Gotcha; it is now clearer to me. >=20 > > :) For my understanding; now that 4d2aa150769b ("vhost: remove chec= k around mutex init") needs a fix, is there a way by which I could have= detect the regression? >=20 > It could have been detected by testing VDUSE, that's how I noticed it= . > But VDUSE is still fairly recent, and it is not yet tested by the CI. >=20 > Now that it is supported in at least Fedora without any kernel change= , > we should work on adding CI testing for it. >=20 > > Your help will be much appreciated, > > Ariel > >=20 >=20 > Thanks for your contribution, > Maxime Thanks for having put some of your time into the explanation.=20 Have a good day, Ariel >