From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adrien Mazarguil Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] net/mlx5: support device removal event Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:28:02 +0200 Message-ID: <20170905092802.GA4301@6wind.com> References: <20170904124943.2pep4kbglu4q5qg4@localhost> <1504533353-38337-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com> <20170904153308.GY4301@6wind.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: =?utf-8?B?TsOpbGlv?= Laranjeiro , "dev@dpdk.org" To: Matan Azrad Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com (mail-wm0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CEF5100F for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2017 11:28:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f54.google.com with SMTP id i145so16377567wmf.1 for ; Tue, 05 Sep 2017 02:28:13 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi Matan, On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 05:52:55PM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote: > Hi Adrien, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com] > > Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 6:33 PM > > To: Matan Azrad > > Cc: Nélio Laranjeiro ; dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] net/mlx5: support device removal event > > > > Hi Matan, > > > > One comment I have is, while this patch adds support for RMV, it also silently > > addresses a bug (see large comment you added to > > priv_link_status_update()). > > > > This should be split in two commits, with the fix part coming first and CC > > stable@dpdk.org, and a second commit adding RMV support proper. > > > > Actually, the mlx4 bug was not appeared in the mlx5 previous code, > Probably because the RMV interrupt was not implemented in mlx5 before this patch. Good point, no RMV could occur before it is implemented, however a dedicated commit for the fix itself (i.e. alarm callback not supposed to end up calling ibv_get_async_event()) might better explain the logic behind these changes. What I mean is, if there was no problem, you wouldn't need to make priv_link_status_update() a separate function, right? > The big comment just explains the link inconsistent issue and was added > here since Nelio and I think the new function, priv_link_status_update(), > justifies this comment for future review. I understand, this could also have been part of the commit log of the dedicated commit. Thanks. -- Adrien Mazarguil 6WIND