From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Yahui Cao <yahui.cao@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bus/vdev: add warning for duplicated vdev
	name
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 14:57:57 +0800
Message-ID: <20181221065757.GA24082@jim-aorus>
References: <20181129071608.20820-1-yahui.cao@intel.com>
 <1682296.hbgUrQPOuL@xps>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, ferruh.yigit@intel.com, tiwei.bie@intel.com
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2226F1BD41
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 07:59:49 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1682296.hbgUrQPOuL@xps>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 03:26:36AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 29/11/2018 08:16, Yahui Cao:
> > If duplicated vdev name is detected, print out a warning message.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Yahui Cao <yahui.cao@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/bus/vdev/vdev.c | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/bus/vdev/vdev.c b/drivers/bus/vdev/vdev.c
> > index 9c66bdc78..ff2db7d3f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/bus/vdev/vdev.c
> > +++ b/drivers/bus/vdev/vdev.c
> > @@ -462,6 +462,8 @@ vdev_scan(void)
> >  		if (find_vdev(devargs->name)) {
> >  			rte_spinlock_recursive_unlock(&vdev_device_list_lock);
> >  			free(dev);
> > +			VDEV_LOG(WARNING, "duplicated vdev name %s detected!",
> > +				devargs->name);
> >  			continue;
> >  		}
> 
> I'm surprised there is nothing to prevent from creating 2 vdevs
> with the same name. It should be considered as an error
> and reject the vdev creation.
> 
> 
Actually it does skip the creation of vdev with the same name. Is it
enough to return error from vdev_scan(), or even return error from
rte_bus_scan()? Please give some advice.