From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Tourrilhes Subject: [PATCH v2] eal: don't fail secondary if primary is missing tailqs Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 10:47:34 -0700 Message-ID: <20161005174734.GC12182@labs.hpe.com> References: <20160922204637.GA3166@labs.hpe.com> <20161005164906.GB11912@labs.hpe.com> <7491622.GqnA43pcBO@xps13> Reply-To: jean.tourrilhes@hpe.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: dev@dpdk.org, David Marchand , Sergio Gonzalez Monroy , olivier.matz@6wind.com, David Hunt To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from g2t2352.austin.hpe.com (g2t2352.austin.hpe.com [15.233.44.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4152E2A1A for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 19:47:36 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7491622.GqnA43pcBO@xps13> 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" If the primary and secondary process were build using different build systems, the list of constructors included by the linker in each binary might be different. Tailqs are registered via constructors, so the linker magic will directly impact which tailqs are registered with the primary and the secondary. DPDK currently assumes that the secondary has a subset of the tailqs registered at the primary. In some build scenario, the secondary might register a tailq that the primary did not register. In this case, instead of exiting with a panic, just unregister the offending tailq and allow the secondary to run. Signed-off-by: Jean Tourrilhes --- lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_tailqs.c | 18 ++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_tailqs.c b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_tailqs.c index bb08ec8..cf5a771 100644 --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_tailqs.c +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_tailqs.c @@ -143,6 +143,8 @@ rte_eal_tailq_update(struct rte_tailq_elem *t) t->head = rte_eal_tailq_create(t->name); } else { t->head = rte_eal_tailq_lookup(t->name); + if (t->head != NULL) + rte_tailqs_count++; } } @@ -178,19 +180,27 @@ int rte_eal_tailqs_init(void) { struct rte_tailq_elem *t; + void *tmp_te; rte_tailqs_count = 0; - TAILQ_FOREACH(t, &rte_tailq_elem_head, next) { + TAILQ_FOREACH_SAFE(t, &rte_tailq_elem_head, next, tmp_te) { /* second part of register job for "early" tailqs, see * rte_eal_tailq_register and EAL_REGISTER_TAILQ */ rte_eal_tailq_update(t); if (t->head == NULL) { RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Cannot initialize tailq: %s\n", t->name); - /* no need to TAILQ_REMOVE, we are going to panic in - * rte_eal_init() */ - goto fail; + if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_PRIMARY) { + /* no need to TAILQ_REMOVE, we are going + * to panic in rte_eal_init() */ + goto fail; + } else { + /* This means our list of constructor is + * no the same as primary. Just remove + * that missing tailq and continue */ + TAILQ_REMOVE(&rte_tailq_elem_head, t, next); + } } }