[dpdk-dev] [Suspected-Phishing]Re: [PATCH v2] net/bonding: support bifurcated driver in eal cli using --vdev

gowrishankar muthukrishnan gowrishankar.m at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Mon Oct 2 10:44:17 CEST 2017


Hi Raslan,
I had submitted newer version and waiting for ack/merge.

dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/29039/

Thanks,
Gowrishankar

On Monday 02 October 2017 02:11 PM, Raslan Darawsheh wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> This is gentle remainder of this patch,
> Do we have any updates about it?
>
> Kindest regards
> Raslan Darawsheh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gowrishankar muthukrishnan [mailto:gowrishankar.m at linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 11:59 AM
> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Gaëtan Rivet <gaetan.rivet at 6wind.com>; Declan Doherty <declan.doherty at intel.com>; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>; Raslan Darawsheh <rasland at mellanox.com>
> Subject: [Suspected-Phishing]Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/bonding: support bifurcated driver in eal cli using --vdev
>
> Hi Thomas,
> I will rework on my patch with these suggestions and send new version.
> Thanks Declan and Gaëtan. Thank you Thomas too reminding me.
>
> Regards,
> Gowrishankar
>
> On Tuesday 05 September 2017 02:43 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> Ping - any news?
>>
>> 31/07/2017 16:34, Gaëtan Rivet:
>>> Hi Gowrishankar, Declan,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:02:24PM +0530, gowrishankar muthukrishnan wrote:
>>>> On Friday 07 July 2017 09:08 PM, Declan Doherty wrote:
>>>>> On 04/07/2017 12:57 PM, Gowrishankar wrote:
>>>>>> From: Gowrishankar Muthukrishnan
>>>>>> <gowrishankar.m at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At present, creating bonding devices using --vdev is broken for
>>>>>> PMD like
>>>>>> mlx5 as it is neither UIO nor VFIO based and hence PMD driver is
>>>>>> unknown to find_port_id_by_pci_addr(), as below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> testpmd <EAL args> --vdev 'net_bonding0,mode=1,slave=<PCI>,socket_id=0'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PMD: bond_ethdev_parse_slave_port_kvarg(150) - Invalid slave port
>>>>>> value (<PCI ID>) specified
>>>>>> EAL: Failed to parse slave ports for bonded device net_bonding0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch fixes parsing PCI ID from bonding device params by
>>>>>> verifying it in RTE PCI bus, rather than checking dev->kdrv.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changes:
>>>>>>    v2 - revisit fix by iterating rte_pci_bus
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Gowrishankar Muthukrishnan
>>>>>> <gowrishankar.m at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Hey Gowrishankar,
>>>>>
>>>>> I was having a look at this patch and there is the following
>>>>> checkpatch error.
>>>>>
>>>>> _coding style issues_
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WARNING:AVOID_EXTERNS: externs should be avoided in .c files
>>>>> #48: FILE: drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_args.c:43:
>>>>> +extern struct rte_pci_bus rte_pci_bus;
>>>>>
>>>> Hi Declan,
>>>> Thank you for your review.
>>>> Yes, but I also saw some references like above in older code.
>>>>
>>>>> Looking at bit closer at the issue I think there is a simpler
>>>>> solution, the bonding driver really shouldn't be parsing the PCI
>>>>> bus directly, and since PCI devices use the PCI DBF as their name
>>>>> we can simply replace the all the scanning code with a simple call
>>>>> to rte_eth_dev_get_port_by_name API.
>>>>>
>>> I agree that it would be better to be able to use the ether API for
>>> this.
>>>
>>> The issue is that PCI devices are inconsistent regarding their names.
>>> The possibility is given to the user to employ the simplified BDF
>>> format for PCI device name, instead of the DomBDF format.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the default device name for a PCI device is in the
>>> DomBDF format. This means that the name won't match if the device was
>>> probed by using the PCI blacklist mode (the default PCI mode).
>>>
>>> The matching must be refined.
>>>
>>>> But you are removing an option to mention ports by PCI addresses
>>>> right  (as I see parse_port_id() completely removed in your patch) ?.
>>>> IMO, we just need to check if given eth pci id (incase we mention
>>>> ports ib PCI ID) is one of what EAL scanned in PCI. Also, slaves
>>>> should not be from any blacklisted PCI ids (as we test with -b or -w).
>>>>
>>> Declan is right about the iteration of PCI devices. The device list
>>> for the PCI bus is private, the extern declaration to the rte_pci_bus
>>> is the telltale sign that there is something wrong in the approach here.
>>>
>>> In order to respect the new rte_bus logic, I think what you want to
>>> achieve can be done by using the rte_bus->find_device with the
>>> correct device comparison function.
>>>
>>> static int
>>> pci_addr_cmp(const struct rte_device *dev, const void *_pci_addr) {
>>>       struct rte_pci_device *pdev;
>>>       char *addr = _pci_addr;
>>>       struct rte_pci_addr paddr;
>>>       static struct rte_bus *pci_bus = NULL;
>>>
>>>       if (pci_bus == NULL)
>>>           pci_bus = rte_bus_find_by_name("pci");
>>>
>>>       if (pci_bus->parse(addr, &paddr) != 0) {
>>>           /* Invalid PCI addr given as input. */
>>>           return -1;
>>>       }
>>>       pdev = RTE_DEV_TO_PCI(dev);
>>>       return rte_eal_compare_pci_addr(&pdev->addr, &paddr); }
>>>
>>> Then verify that you are able to get a device by using it as follows:
>>>
>>> {
>>>       struct rte_bus *pci_bus;
>>>       struct rte_device *dev;
>>>
>>>       pci_bus = rte_bus_find_by_name("pci");
>>>       if (pci_bus == NULL) {
>>>           RTE_LOG(ERR, PMD, "Unable to find PCI bus\n");
>>>           return -1;
>>>       }
>>>       dev = pci_bus->find_device(NULL, pci_addr_cmp, devname);
>>>       if (dev == NULL) {
>>>           RTE_LOG(ERR, PMD, "Unable to find the device %s to enslave.\n",
>>>                   devname);
>>>           return -EINVAL;
>>>       }
>>> }
>>>
>>> I hope it's clear enough. You can find examples of use for this API
>>> in lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_dev.c
>>>
>>> It's a quick implementation to outline the possible direction, I
>>> haven't compiled it. It should be refined.
>>>
>>> For example, the PCI address validation should not be happening in
>>> the comparison function, the pci_bus could be matched once instead of
>>> twice, etc...
>>>
>>> But the logic should work.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>

-- 
Regards,
Gowrishankar M
Linux Networking



More information about the dev mailing list