From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/23] net/i40e: enable port detach on
 secondary process
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 13:01:20 +0300
Message-ID: <735a0339-577c-fc26-386d-aba15b61f04c@solarflare.com>
References: <20180607123849.14439-1-qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
 <20180625071745.16810-1-qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
 <20180625071745.16810-9-qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, <dev@dpdk.org>,
 <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
 <benjamin.h.shelton@intel.com>, <narender.vangati@intel.com>
To: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>, <thomas@monjalon.net>,
 <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com
 [148.163.129.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC1F03195
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 25 Jun 2018 12:01:33 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <20180625071745.16810-9-qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
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 06/25/2018 10:17 AM, Qi Zhang wrote:
> Previously, detach port on secondary process will mess primary
> process and cause same device can't be attached again, by take
> advantage of rte_eth_release_port_private, we can support this
> with minor change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> ---
>   drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c    | 2 ++
>   drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c | 9 +++++++++
>   2 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c
> index 13c5d3296..7d1f98422 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c
> @@ -678,6 +678,8 @@ static int eth_i40e_pci_remove(struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev)
>   	if (!ethdev)
>   		return -ENODEV;
>   
> +	if (rte_eal_process_type() != RTE_PROC_PRIMARY)
> +		return rte_eth_dev_release_port_private(ethdev);
>   
>   	if (ethdev->data->dev_flags & RTE_ETH_DEV_REPRESENTOR)
>   		return rte_eth_dev_destroy(ethdev, i40e_vf_representor_uninit);
> diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c
> index 804e44530..fc6f079d5 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c
> @@ -1500,6 +1500,15 @@ static int eth_i40evf_pci_probe(struct rte_pci_driver *pci_drv __rte_unused,
>   
>   static int eth_i40evf_pci_remove(struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev)
>   {
> +	struct rte_eth_dev *ethdev;
> +		ethdev = rte_eth_dev_allocated(pci_dev->device.name);

Above two lines looks strange. Is alignment incorrect?

> +
> +	if (!ethdev)
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +
> +	if (rte_eal_process_type() != RTE_PROC_PRIMARY)
> +		return rte_eth_dev_release_port_private(ethdev);
> +

These 9 lines are duplicated in 5 changeset (this one and 4 following).
Shouldn't it be done in rte_eth_dev_pci_generic_remove()?

>   	return rte_eth_dev_pci_generic_remove(pci_dev, i40evf_dev_uninit);
>   }