> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Rybchenko [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 5:27 PM
> To: Zhang, Qi Z <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Burakov,
> Anatoly <[email protected]>
> Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> Richardson, Bruce <[email protected]>; Yigit, Ferruh
> <[email protected]>; Shelton, Benjamin H
> <[email protected]>; Vangati, Narender
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 01/19] ethdev: add function to release port
> in local process
>
> On 11.07.2018 06:08, Qi Zhang wrote:
> > Add driver API rte_eth_release_port_private to support the case when
> > an ethdev need to be detached on a secondary process.
> > Local state is set to unused and shared data will not be reset so the
> > primary process can still use it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <[email protected]>
> > Reviewed-by: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]>
> > Acked-by: Remy Horton <[email protected]>
> > ---
<...>
> > + /**
> > + * PCI device can only be globally detached directly by a
> > + * primary process. In secondary process, we only need to
> > + * release port.
> > + */
> > + if (rte_eal_process_type() != RTE_PROC_PRIMARY)
> > + return rte_eth_dev_release_port_private(eth_dev);
>
> I've realized that some uninit functions which will not be called anymore in
> secondary processes have check for process type and handling of secondary
> process case. It makes code inconsistent and should be fixed.
Good point, I did a scan and check all the places that
rte_eth_dev_pci_generic_remove be involved.
I found only sfc driver (sfc_eth_dev_unit) will call some cleanup on secondary
process as below.
if (rte_eal_process_type() != RTE_PROC_PRIMARY) {
sfc_eth_dev_secondary_clear_ops(dev);
return 0;
}
But in sfc_eth_dev_secondary_clear_ops
static void
sfc_eth_dev_secondary_clear_ops(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
{
dev->dev_ops = NULL;
dev->tx_pkt_burst = NULL;
dev->rx_pkt_burst = NULL;
}
So my understand is current change is not a problem for all exist drivers.
Please let me know if I missed something
Thanks
Qi
>
> > +
> > if (dev_uninit) {
> > ret = dev_uninit(eth_dev);
> > if (ret)
