> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
> Sent: 2022年3月5日 0:16
> To: Wu, WenxuanX <wenxuanx...@intel.com>; Li, Xiaoyun
> <xiaoyun...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] app/testpmd:fix testpmd quit failure
>
> On 3/3/2022 1:22 PM, Wu, WenxuanX wrote:
>
> moved down, please don't top post
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Wu, WenxuanX <wenxuanx...@intel.com>
> >> Sent: 2022年2月23日 19:33
> >> To: Li, Xiaoyun <xiaoyun...@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh
> >> <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> >> Cc: Wu, WenxuanX <wenxuanx...@intel.com>; sta...@dpdk.org
> >> Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] app/testpmd:fix testpmd quit failure
> >>
> >> From: wenxuan wu <wenxuanx...@intel.com>
> >>
> >> When testpmd start ed with 1 pf and 2 vfs, testpmd quited while vfs
> >> were still alive would result in failure. Root cause is that pf had
> >> been released already but vfs were still accessing by func
> >> rte_eth_dev_info_get, which would result in heap-free-after-use error.
> >>
> >> By quitting our ports in reverse order to avoid this.And the order is
> >> guaranteed that vf are created after pfs.
> >>
> >> Fixes: d3a274ce9dee ("app/testpmd: handle SIGINT and SIGTERM")
> >> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: wenxuan wu <wenxuanx...@intel.com>
> >> ---
> >> app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 4 ++--
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c index
> >> e1da961311..698b6d8cc4 100644
> >> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> >> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> >> @@ -3384,12 +3384,12 @@ pmd_test_exit(void) #endif
> >> if (ports != NULL) {
> >> no_link_check = 1;
> >> - RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(pt_id) {
> >> + RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV_REVERSE(pt_id) {
> >> printf("\nStopping port %d...\n", pt_id);
> >> fflush(stdout);
> >> stop_port(pt_id);
> >> }
> >> - RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(pt_id) {
> >> + RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV_REVERSE(pt_id) {
> >> printf("\nShutting down port %d...\n", pt_id);
> >> fflush(stdout);
> >> close_port(pt_id);
> >> --
> >> 2.25.1
> >
> >
> > I found this meaning in DPDK testplan.
> > Note that currently hot-plugging of representor ports is not supported so
> > all
> the required representors must be specified on the creation of the PF or the
> trusted VF.
> > When testpmd is started with pf and vf representors, the order of
> representor is determined on creation. So it is guaranteed that ,pf is beneath
> the vf representors, we implemented in a reverse way is acceptable just at
> present, depends on when the hot-plugging of representor is supported.
> >
>
> The patch mentions from PF and VFs, and now you are referring to port
> representor.
> Is the problem related to VF or port representor.
>
> For both, VF and port reporesentor should be closed before PF, that part is
> OK. My comment is if reversing port id traverse will fix the issue or do we
> need more complex solution.
> Like have APIs to get VF and representor ports from a given port id, and free
> them first.
This patch did fix the issue ,and was verified.But it was rejected.
