From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruce Richardson Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfp: avoiding concurrency when hardware reconfig Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 12:20:13 +0100 Message-ID: <20160503112012.GD20328@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <1461672855-44715-1-git-send-email-alejandro.lucero@netronome.com> <20160503110148.GC20328@bricha3-MOBL3> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: dev To: Alejandro Lucero Return-path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C5FB2C6E for ; Tue, 3 May 2016 13:20:17 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 12:14:26PM +0100, Alejandro Lucero wrote: > Hi Bruce, >=20 > Sorry about this. I sent a v2 for this patch but not in the same thread= : >=20 > http://www.dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-April/037996.html >=20 Ok, I see it in patchwork now, thanks. When sending a v2, please keep the mails threaded, and please also update= the original patch submission in patchwork to "superceded" so that it drops o= ff the list of patches for consideration in DPDK. [That way at least if you forg= et one, the other will help hint to committers that they are not looking at the l= atest version. :-)] /Bruce > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Bruce Richardson < > bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote: >=20 > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 01:14:15PM +0100, Alejandro Lucero wrote: > > > Some apps calling some functions from different threads at the > > > same time could lead to reconfig problems. Reconfig mechanism is > > > based on a hardware queue where incrementing a counter signals the > > > firmware to do the reconfig. If there are two increments before the > > > first one has been processed the firmware will stop and a device > > > reset is necessary. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Lucero > > > --- > > > drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c | 8 ++++++++ > > > drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net_pmd.h | 1 + > > > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c b/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c > > > index bc0a3d8..ba0ee04 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c > > > +++ b/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c > > > @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ > > > #include "nfp_net_pmd.h" > > > #include "nfp_net_logs.h" > > > #include "nfp_net_ctrl.h" > > > +#include > > > > Hi Alejandro, > > > > I think this header addition is in the wrong place in the code. When = I > > apply > > this patch to next-net and try a recompile I get the error: > > > > CC nfp_net.o > > In file included from > > /home/bruce/next-net/dpdk-next-net/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net.c:58:0: > > /home/bruce/next-net/dpdk-next-net/drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net_pmd.h:40= 9:2: > > error: unknown type name =E2=80=98rte_spinlock_t=E2=80=99 > > rte_spinlock_t reconfig_lock; > > ^ > > > > You either need to put the spinlock include before the nfp_net_pmd.h > > include > > or, perhaps better, put the spinlock include inside the nfp_net_pmd h= eader > > file > > since that is where the spinlock variable is being defined. > > > > /Bruce > > > >