From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tetsuya Mukawa Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] Change rte_eal_vdev_init to update port_id Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:31:51 +0900 Message-ID: <55C83747.7080902@igel.co.jp> References: <1438884241-15599-1-git-send-email-rkerur@gmail.com> <55C41735.1030405@igel.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" To: Ravi Kerur Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com (mail-pa0-f46.google.com [209.85.220.46]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2B11A10 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 07:31:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: by pabyb7 with SMTP id yb7so98456869pab.0 for ; Sun, 09 Aug 2015 22:31:55 -0700 (PDT) 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 2015/08/08 7:06, Ravi Kerur wrote: > Hi Tetsuya, > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa > wrote: > > On 2015/08/07 3:04, Ravi Kerur wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/net/enic/enic_ethdev.c > b/drivers/net/enic/enic_ethdev.c > > index 8280cea..472ef5a 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/enic/enic_ethdev.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/enic/enic_ethdev.c > > @@ -36,8 +36,8 @@ > > #include > > #include > > > > -#include > > #include > > +#include > > #include > > #include > > Hi Ravi, > > Do we need this fixing? > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/mpipe/mpipe_tilegx.c > b/drivers/net/mpipe/mpipe_tilegx.c > > index 743feef..6e3e304 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/mpipe/mpipe_tilegx.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/mpipe/mpipe_tilegx.c > > @@ -1582,6 +1582,7 @@ rte_pmd_mpipe_devinit(const char *ifname, > > if (!eth_dev) { > > RTE_LOG(ERR, PMD, "%s: Failed to allocate > device.\n", ifname); > > rte_free(priv); > > + return -ENOMEM; > > How about separating this fixing from the patch, and put it as an > one of > cleanup patch series? > > > rte_pmd_mpipe_devinit is the init func pointer called via > rte_eal_vdev_init. Since we were fixing rte_eal_vdev_init thought of > taking care of mpipe issue. If you think it's unrelated to this patch > I will send a separate one. > Hi Ravi, To avoid segmentation fault like above has a point, even if rest of this patch won't be applied. So I guess it's nice to separate the patch. Thanks, Tetsuya