On 4/29/2019 9:14 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 29/04/2019 19:00, Ferruh Yigit: >> On 4/26/2019 6:09 AM, Xiaolong Ye wrote: >>> Since 18.11, it is suggested that driver should release all its private >>> resources at the dev_close routine. So all resources previously released >>> in remove routine are now released at the dev_close routine, and the >>> dev_close routine will be called in driver remove routine in order to >>> support removing a device without closing its ports. >>> >>> Above behavior changes are supported by setting RTE_ETH_DEV_CLOSE_REMOVE >>> flag during probe stage. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Xiaolong Ye <[email protected]> >> >> <...> >> >>> @@ -936,14 +940,7 @@ rte_pmd_af_xdp_remove(struct rte_vdev_device *dev) >>> if (eth_dev == NULL) >>> return -1; >>> >>> - internals = eth_dev->data->dev_private; >>> - >>> - rte_ring_free(internals->umem->buf_ring); >>> - rte_memzone_free(internals->umem->mz); >>> - rte_free(internals->umem); >>> - >>> - rte_eth_dev_release_port(eth_dev); >> >> I thinks we should keep 'rte_eth_dev_release_port()' in '.remove()' path, >> the 'RTE_ETH_DEV_CLOSE_REMOVE' flag will take care of this in >> 'rte_eth_dev_close()' but still needed in '.remove()' path. > > I don't understand your comment. > Calling the close function looks the right thing to do in "remove".
No concern on calling the 'close'. My comment was to keep 'rte_eth_dev_release_port()' which this patch removes. > >>> - >>> + eth_dev_close(eth_dev); > > >
