On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 10:20 AM Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coque...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 9/16/24 14:30, David Marchand wrote: > > At the moment, if VFIO is not available at DPDK init, it won't be > > available unless a subsequent rte_vfio_enable() is done. > > > > Yet, even if rte_vfio_enable() is called again in primary and secondary > > processes, a secondary process will never get to know that VFIO has been > > enabled in the primary process as the MP requests handler is only > > registered in EAL init. > > > > On the other hand, moving the MP requests handler registration earlier > > in EAL init is ok, as secondary process are supposed to be waiting on > > eal_mcfg_wait_complete() until the primary process calls > > eal_mcfg_complete(). > > > > Move vfio_mp_sync_setup() in rte_vfio_enable(). > > > > Besides, rte_eal_vfio_setup() is useless and its name with a rte_ prefix > > is ambiguous as it gives the impression it is an exported/public symbol. > > Remove it and directly call rte_vfio_enable() where needed. > > > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> > > --- > > lib/eal/linux/eal.c | 18 +----------------- > > lib/eal/linux/eal_vfio.c | 9 ++++++--- > > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > > > Should it be considered as a fix, and so a candidate for stable? > Or do you think it is too risky to change the behaviour?
Cc: stable maintainers (fyi) I don't think it is risky: existing applications which relied on multi process had no choice but to make sure VFIO was properly setup before DPDK init. Yet, a change in behavior impact is always hard to estimate. (same comment for the second patch of the series) -- David Marchand
