From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com (mail-ob0-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F46A9AC7 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 17:19:19 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id wp4so32475493obc.10 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 08:19:18 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=0/KSJ0XIwN15wegn9sNq+/IauB7xs5aDyPs3Q75N68w=; b=P9TnFLztwe5OfT6nqd+FcT9sCF2OvjhiSBIQygKoj8M/KGZAPjhqvsIROyZIHI58vP 4DGHT6nQzso9ZjJlFP7D1zHqkMzYbYs7ZOqCiyEyLvnjtCWGtWeh9NBfqNm4clUFveoA 7JMFZzF7WaDZWLk1NfOoHcfm8jMx6CElAMPyCxLlfXPVNPd7hqrqy9LJHjIW9cSbpXfK Ota1Fl1QO2NCMRLyUkcdW2NscAZovAXr4OH/5dorGpVXIR+0j6zpmaoeIK16+VUB+tUH N89XHMo4bHccJP1T+HNHLUp8dDfcYRFWRvosBRE4lrpPLhQ/BYyusZriSRdoLuGNEd1G RAzA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmNd1vHI9blp07ID5krXu/uRHj8NASxfMOJPY06z4gtwIopX0v3h79OKhlrHiml32sHyXH0 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.155.135 with SMTP id vw7mr4847773oeb.62.1424621958490; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 08:19:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.133.162 with HTTP; Sun, 22 Feb 2015 08:19:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <3376494.YE1J4OXSVA@xps13> References: <54E9695A.5010509@igel.co.jp> <3376494.YE1J4OXSVA@xps13> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 17:19:18 +0100 Message-ID: From: David Marchand To: Thomas Monjalon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Testpmd returns error. X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 16:19:19 -0000 Hello, On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > Hi Tetsuya, > > > Someone, could you please check it? > > It is possible that this patchset was not correctly tested. > We might revert it or try to fix it. > I think the decision should be done by its authors (Danny, Bruce), > or the Linux EAL maintainer (David). > Well, I need to have a deeper look at this change. I did not find time before my holidays. - I think there may be an issue with the use of resource0 instead of /dev/uio. I am not sure uio mmap will be happy or I overlooked something trivial. - Testing proc type in pci_uio_map_resource() looks wrong to me, since we validated earlier in this same function that we are in primary process. - uio_res->maps indexes are not the same as the pci resources, might trigger problems (and it clearly does not make it easy to read ...). And now we are reading sysfs twice. I would prefer this code is reworked so that we avoid those loops in eal_pci_uio.c. Anyway, I am still on holiday (I should have kept my laptop away ...), I will be back tomorrow. I suppose Bruce or Danny will come with a fix, let's decide what the best solution is at this moment. -- David Marchand