Hi Maxime and Hemant, On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 at 09:44, Maxime Leroy <[email protected]> wrote: > Le sam. 8 nov. 2025 à 16:32, David Marchand > <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > Calling rte_eth_dev_allocated() is enough to retrieve the > > ethdev device object. > > > > This leaves no user of the ethdev field in the fslmc device object. > > > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/bus/fslmc/bus_fslmc_driver.h | 1 - > > drivers/net/dpaa2/dpaa2_ethdev.c | 6 ++++-- > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/bus/fslmc/bus_fslmc_driver.h > > b/drivers/bus/fslmc/bus_fslmc_driver.h > > index efa88754a7..094f885f59 100644 > > --- a/drivers/bus/fslmc/bus_fslmc_driver.h > > +++ b/drivers/bus/fslmc/bus_fslmc_driver.h > > @@ -98,7 +98,6 @@ struct rte_dpaa2_device { > > TAILQ_ENTRY(rte_dpaa2_device) next; /**< Next probed DPAA2 device. > > */ > > struct rte_device device; /**< Inherit core device */ > > union { > > - struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev; /**< ethernet device */ > > struct rte_rawdev *rawdev; /**< Raw Device */ > > }; > > enum rte_dpaa2_dev_type dev_type; /**< Device Type */ > > diff --git a/drivers/net/dpaa2/dpaa2_ethdev.c > > b/drivers/net/dpaa2/dpaa2_ethdev.c > > index 7da32ce856..2a26a02cb4 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/dpaa2/dpaa2_ethdev.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/dpaa2/dpaa2_ethdev.c > > @@ -3320,7 +3320,6 @@ rte_dpaa2_probe(struct rte_dpaa2_driver *dpaa2_drv, > > > > eth_dev->device = &dpaa2_dev->device; > > > > - dpaa2_dev->eth_dev = eth_dev; > > eth_dev->data->rx_mbuf_alloc_failed = 0; > > > > if (dpaa2_drv->drv_flags & RTE_DPAA2_DRV_INTR_LSC) > > @@ -3349,7 +3348,10 @@ rte_dpaa2_remove(struct rte_dpaa2_device *dpaa2_dev) > > struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev; > > int ret; > > > > - eth_dev = dpaa2_dev->eth_dev; > > + eth_dev = rte_eth_dev_allocated(dpaa2_dev->device.name); > > + if (!eth_dev) > > + return 0; > > + > > dpaa2_dev_close(eth_dev); > > dpaa2_valid_dev--; > > if (!dpaa2_valid_dev) > > > dpaa2_valid_dev is currently incremented in rte_dpaa2_probe. With your > modification, dpaa2_valid_dev will never be decremented in > rte_dpaa2_remove if rte_eth_dev_close has already been called. > As a consequence, dpaa2_tx_sg_pool will never be freed. > > I don’t think dpaa2_tx_sg_pool should be freed in rte_dpaa2_remove; it > should be freed in dpaa2_dev_close instead. > For symmetry, dpaa2_tx_sg_pool should also be allocated directly in > dpaa2_dev_init.
Indeed, moving the dpaa2_tx_sg_pool handling in dev_init/dev_close is more self contained, and looks cleaner. Now, taking a step back, I should not try and fix the bug you guys have been working on. IOW, the check on !eth_dev in this patch of mine is unrelated to the series. I'll respin a v2 shortly, that focuses on the layer violation only. For you guys to fix the double close bug. -- David Marchand
