From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ethdev: fix rte_eth_dev_owner_unset
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 14:55:56 +0100
Message-ID: <fc0f9714-1928-9c3a-dd89-7d7f1e97726d@intel.com>
References: <20180814001926.19630-1-stephen@networkplumber.org>
 <AM0PR0502MB4019D2C8D2486AEDF7B95734D2380@AM0PR0502MB4019.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20180814095521.492e575a@xeon-e3>
 <DB3PR0502MB40281C9B5A11F17D0231108DD2380@DB3PR0502MB4028.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>,
 Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E314CE4
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 15:55:59 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR0502MB40281C9B5A11F17D0231108DD2380@DB3PR0502MB4028.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Language: en-US
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 8/14/2018 8:46 PM, Matan Azrad wrote:
> Hi Stephen
> 
> From: Stephen Hemminger
>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 05:52:20 +0000
>> Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Stephen
>>>
>>> From: Stephen Hemminger
>>>> The rte_eth_dev_owner_unset function is unusable because it always
>>>> returns -EINVAL. This is because the magic (unowned) value is
>>>> flagged as not valid.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's OK to raise an error when you do unset for unowned device.
>>> It means that unset owner should be called for owned device.
>>>
>>
>> Original code was broken. The following would always fail.
>>
>> 	rte_eth_dev_owner_new(&owner.id);
>> 	sprintf(owner.name, "example");
>> 	rte_eth_dev_owner_set(port_id, &owner);
>> 	rte_eth_dev_owner_unset(port_id, owner.id);
>>
>> That is because of:
>> 	rte_eth_dev_owner_unset(port_id, owner_id)
>> 		_rte_eth_dev_owner_set(port_id, owner_id, &new_owner)
>> << new_owner.id == RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER (0)
>>
>>
>> 	if (!rte_eth_is_valid_owner_id(new_owner->id) &&  <<
>> new_owner->id == RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER (which is flagged as invalid)
>> 	    !rte_eth_is_valid_owner_id(old_owner_id))
>> 		return -EINVAL;
>>
> 
> But both should be invalid the new owner and the old owner(&&) to raise an EINVAL error.
> 
> In the aforementioned check above the old owner should be valid.

It looks rte_eth_dev_owner_unset() works, updating patch as rejected.