> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Kiszka [mailto:jan.kiszka at siemens.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2015 2:43 PM > To: Ouyang, Changchun; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] vchost: Notify application of ownership > change > > On 2015-08-08 02:25, Ouyang, Changchun wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jan Kiszka > >> Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2015 1:21 AM > >> To: dev at dpdk.org > >> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] vchost: Notify application of ownership > >> change > > > > Vchost should be vhost in the title > > Oops. Unless I need to resend for some other reason, I guess the commit can > fix this up. > > > > >> > >> On VHOST_*_RESET_OWNER, we reinitialize the device but without > >> telling the application. That will cause crashes when it continues to > >> invoke vhost services on the device. Fix it by calling the > >> destruction hook if the device is still in use. > > What's your qemu version? > > git head, see my other reply for details. > > > Any validation work on this patch? > > What do you mean with this? Test cases? Or steps to reproduce? For the > latter, just fire up a recent qemu, let the guest enable the virtio device, > then > reboot or simply terminate qemu.
Here, I mean test case, Need make sure the change works on both qemu 2.4(with the reset commit in qemu) and qemu2.2/2.3(without the commit in qemu). > > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka at siemens.com> > >> --- > >> > >> This is the surprisingly simple answer to my questions in > >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.networking.dpdk.devel/22661. > >> > >> lib/librte_vhost/virtio-net.c | 3 +++ > >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/virtio-net.c > >> b/lib/librte_vhost/virtio-net.c index > >> b520ec5..3c5b5b2 100644 > >> --- a/lib/librte_vhost/virtio-net.c > >> +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/virtio-net.c > >> @@ -402,6 +402,9 @@ reset_owner(struct vhost_device_ctx ctx) > >> > >> ll_dev = get_config_ll_entry(ctx); > >> > >> + if ((ll_dev->dev.flags & VIRTIO_DEV_RUNNING)) > >> + notify_ops->destroy_device(&ll_dev->dev); > >> + > > > > I am not sure whether destroy_device here will affect the second time > init_device(below) and new_device(after the reset) or not. > > Need validation. > > Cannot follow, what do you mean with "second time"? If the callback could > invoke something that causes cleanup_device to be called as well? > That's at least not the case with vhost-switch, but I'm far from being > familiar > with the API to asses if that is possible in general. RESET is often followed by a second time virtio device creation. If you have chance to run testpmd with virtio PMD on guest, that would be that case: Call RESET, and then create virtio device again to make it work for packets rx/tx > > Jan > > > > >> cleanup_device(&ll_dev->dev); > >> init_device(&ll_dev->dev); > >> > >> -- > >> 2.1.4 > > > -- > Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE Corporate > Competence Center Embedded Linux