From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] devargs: do not replace already inserted
	devargs
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 13:53:19 +0100
Message-ID: <3095983.aBgvmuOXeg@xps>
References: <20181107232105.19187-1-thomas@monjalon.net>
 <7262839.kmssWOtaOX@xps>
 <FBE7E039FA50BF47A673AD0BD3CD56A84622BAB1@HASMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 "gaetan.rivet@6wind.com" <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>, "Zhang,
 Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>, "Guo, Jia" <jia.guo@intel.com>
To: "Stojaczyk, Dariusz" <dariusz.stojaczyk@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.29]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 817214CAB
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  8 Nov 2018 13:53:22 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <FBE7E039FA50BF47A673AD0BD3CD56A84622BAB1@HASMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com>
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>

08/11/2018 13:35, Stojaczyk, Dariusz:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> > 08/11/2018 12:25, Stojaczyk, Dariusz:
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> > > >
> > > > The devargs of a device can be replaced by a newly allocated one
> > > > when trying to probe again the same device (multi-process or
> > > > multi-ports scenarios). This is breaking some pointer references.
> > > >
> > > > It can be avoided by copying the new content, freeing the new devargs,
> > > > and returning the already inserted pointer.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > >
> > > Tested-by: Darek Stojaczyk <dariusz.stojaczyk@intel.com>
> > 
> > Is it fixing any use case?
> 
> Of course it is. I was previously seeing a regression with the following scenario:
> 1. hotplug device in the primary process
> 2. start a secodary process
> 3. hotplug device in secondary -> primary segfaults
> 
> And now it's working.

Good to know!
Thank you