From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 7/7] app/testpmd: check not detaching device twice Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:37:38 +0200 Message-ID: <1721220.7rV5GyacGl@xps> References: <20181007222554.4886-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <3243790.6gorE4o5SW@xps> <2058868.Os1dUGhjLa@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "gaetan.rivet@6wind.com" , "ophirmu@mellanox.com" , "wisamm@mellanox.com" , "arybchenko@solarflare.com" To: "Iremonger, Bernard" , "Yigit, Ferruh" Return-path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 914301B426 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:37:39 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <2058868.Os1dUGhjLa@xps> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" I want to submit two more patches to clean testpmd for attach/detach. I propose to drop this patch from this series, and I will submit a new series dedicated to testpmd cleanup, including this patch. 23/10/2018 14:13, Thomas Monjalon: > 23/10/2018 14:03, Thomas Monjalon: > > 23/10/2018 12:01, Iremonger, Bernard: > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > > > > The command "port detach" is removing the EAL rte_device of the ethdev > > > > port specified as parameter. > > > > > > > > After detaching, the pointer, which maps a port to its device, is resetted. This > > > > > > Typo: "resetted" should be "reset" > > > > > > > way, it is possible to check whether a port is still associated to a (not > > > > removed) device. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon > > > > --- > > > > app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++--- > > > > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c index > > > > 14647fa19..d5998fddc 100644 > > > > --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c > > > > +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c > > > > @@ -2353,8 +2353,17 @@ setup_attached_port(portid_t pi) void > > > > detach_port(portid_t port_id) { > > > > + struct rte_device *dev; > > > > + portid_t sibling; > > > > + > > > > printf("Removing a device...\n"); > > > > > > The functionality of the detach_port() function has changed now to > > > removing a device, should the function name be changed to reflect > > > the new functionality. > > > > No it doesn't change, it has always removed the rte_device of the port. > > But the naming is a bit strange, I agree. > > I just changed the log to make it a bit clearer. > > > > > How about detach_device() instead of detach detach_port(). > > > > The strange thing with testpmd is that every commands take a port id. > > The rte_device is hidden in testpmd. > > So the detach command is detaching the underlying device of the port, > > and all its sibling ports of course. > > > > What about detach_device_of_port() ? > > Or detach_port_device()? > > > [...] > > > > - if (rte_dev_remove(rte_eth_devices[port_id].device) != 0) { > > > > + if (rte_dev_remove(dev) != 0) { > > > > TESTPMD_LOG(ERR, "Failed to detach port %u\n", port_id); > > > > > > Should the log message be ( ERR "Failed to detach device %s\n", dev->name) ? > > > > Yes! > > > > [...] > > > > - printf("Port %u is detached. Now total ports is %d\n", > > > > - port_id, nb_ports); > > > > > > How about printf("Device %s is detached, Now total ports is %d\n" > > > dev->name, nb_ports); > > > > The issue is that we cannot get the device name after detach. > > I can reword it differently: > > Device of port %u is detached, Now total ports is %d