[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] net/failsafe: fix removed device handling

Matan Azrad matan at mellanox.com
Wed Dec 13 16:48:46 CET 2017


Hi Gaetan
Thanks for the review.
Some comments..

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gaëtan Rivet [mailto:gaetan.rivet at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 5:17 PM
> To: Matan Azrad <matan at mellanox.com>
> Cc: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil at 6wind.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> <thomas at monjalon.net>; dev at dpdk.org; stable at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] net/failsafe: fix removed device handling
> 
> Hi Matan,
> 
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 02:29:30PM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote:
> > There is time between the physical removal of the device until
> > sub-device PMDs get a RMV interrupt. At this time DPDK PMDs and
> > applications still don't know about the removal and may call
> > sub-device control operation which should return an error.
> >
> > In previous code this error is reported to the application contrary to
> > fail-safe principle that the app should not be aware of device removal.
> >
> > Add an removal check in each relevant control command error flow and
> > prevent an error report to application when the sub-device is removed.
> >
> > Fixes: a46f8d5 ("net/failsafe: add fail-safe PMD")
> > Fixes: b737a1e ("net/failsafe: support flow API")
> > Cc: stable at dpdk.org
> >
> 
> This patch is not a fix.
> It relies on an eth_dev API evolution. Without this evolution, this patch is
> meaningless and would break compilation if backported in stable branch.
> 

It is a fix because the bug is finally solved by this patch.
I agree that it cannot be backported itself, but maybe all the series should be backported.
Other idea:
Add new patch which documents the bug and backport it.
Remove it in this patch and remove cc stable from it.
What do you think?

> Please remove those tags.
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Matan Azrad <matan at mellanox.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_flow.c    | 18 ++++++++++-------
> >  drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_ops.c     | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> ------
> >  drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe_private.h | 10 ++++++++++
> >  3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> 
> < ... >
> 
> > +/*
> > + * Check if sub device was removed.
> > + */
> > +static inline int
> > +fs_is_removed(struct sub_device *sdev) {
> > +	if (sdev->remove == 1 || rte_eth_dev_is_removed(PORT_ID(sdev))
> != 0)
> > +		return 1;
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> 
> Have you considered adding this check within the subdev iterator itself?
> I think it would prevent you from having to add it to each return value
> checks.
> 
> It is still MT-unsafe anyway.
>

This fix doesn't come to solve the MT issue, It comes to solve the error report to application because of removal.
Adding the check in subdev iterator doesn't make sense for this issue.

Matan. 
> --
> Gaëtan Rivet
> 6WIND


More information about the dev mailing list