Re: [PATCH v3] bus/pci: don't open uio device in secondary process

[Konrad Sztyber <konrad.sztyber@gmail.com>]

On 9/22/25 10:22 AM, chenbox at nvidia.com (Chenbo Xia) wrote:
>> +static int
>> +pci_uio_send_fd(const struct rte_mp_msg *request, const void *peer)
>> +{
>> +       struct rte_pci_device *dev;
>> +       const struct pci_uio_send_fd_param *param =
>> +               (const struct pci_uio_send_fd_param *)request->param;
>> +       struct rte_mp_msg reply = {};
>> +       int fd;
>> +
>> +       strlcpy(reply.name, request->name, sizeof(reply.name));
>> +       TAILQ_FOREACH(dev, &rte_pci_bus.device_list, next) {
>> +               if (!rte_pci_addr_cmp(&dev->addr, &param->addr))
>> +                       break;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       if (dev == NULL) {
>> +               PCI_LOG(ERR, "Could not find PCI device (" PCI_PRI_FMT ")",
>> +                       param->addr.domain, param->addr.bus,
>> +                       param->addr.devid, param->addr.function);
>> +               goto reply;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       fd = rte_intr_fd_get(dev->intr_handle);
>> +       if (fd < 0) {
>> +               PCI_LOG(ERR, "Could not get fd (" PCI_PRI_FMT ")",
>> +                       param->addr.domain, param->addr.bus,
>> +                       param->addr.devid, param->addr.function);
>> +               goto reply;
>> +       }
> Should we just return error instead of calling rte_mp_reply when dev == NULL or fd < 0?

We could, but that means that we won't send any response to the 
secondary process, so it'll timeout. I figured it's better to return a 
response with num_fds = 0 to let it fail immediately.

Konrad