Tuesday, July 10, 2018 12:37 PM, Adrien Mazarguil:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/10] net/mlx5: add parameter for port
> representors
>
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 11:57:37AM +0000, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> > Thursday, July 5, 2018 11:46 AM, Adrien Mazarguil:
> > > Subject: [PATCH v4 09/10] net/mlx5: add parameter for port
> > > representors
> > >
> > > Prior to this patch, all port representors detected on a given
> > > device were probed and Ethernet devices instantiated for each of them.
> > >
> > > This patch adds support for the standard "representor" parameter,
> > > which implies that port representors are not probed by default
> > > anymore, except for the list provided through device arguments.
> > >
> > > (Patch based on prior work from Yuanhan Liu)
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Xueming Li <xuemi...@mellanox.com>
> > > --
> > > v3 changes:
> > >
> > > - Adapted representor detection to the reworked mlx5_dev_spawn().
> <snip>
> > > @@ -672,7 +679,9 @@ mlx5_uar_init_secondary(struct rte_eth_dev
> *dev)
> > > *
> > > * @return
> > > * A valid Ethernet device object on success, NULL otherwise and
> rte_errno
> > > - * is set.
> > > + * is set. The following error is defined:
> > > + *
> > > + * EBUSY: device is not supposed to be spawned.
> > > */
> > > static struct rte_eth_dev *
> > > mlx5_dev_spawn(struct rte_device *dpdk_dev, @@ -723,6 +732,26 @@
> > > mlx5_dev_spawn(struct rte_device *dpdk_dev,
> > > int own_domain_id = 0;
> > > unsigned int i;
> > >
> > > + /* Determine if this port representor is supposed to be spawned. */
> > > + if (switch_info->representor && dpdk_dev->devargs) {
> > > + struct rte_eth_devargs eth_da;
> > > +
> > > + err = rte_eth_devargs_parse(dpdk_dev->devargs->args,
> > > ð_da);
> > > + if (err) {
> > > + rte_errno = -err;
> > > + DRV_LOG(ERR, "failed to process device arguments:
> > > %s",
> > > + strerror(rte_errno));
> > > + return NULL;
> > > + }
> > > + for (i = 0; i < eth_da.nb_representor_ports; ++i)
> > > + if (eth_da.representor_ports[i] ==
> > > + (uint16_t)switch_info->port_name)
> > > + break;
> > > + if (i == eth_da.nb_representor_ports) {
> > > + rte_errno = EBUSY;
> >
> > Why EBUSY is the correct errno? Will another attempts to probe the device
> can be successful?
>
> That's the definition of EAGAIN :)
>
> I thought EBUSY in the sense of "don't disturb" would be appropriate. This
> value was also chosen because it is not likely to be returned by any
> intermediate function calls. I've defined EBUSY along with the return value of
> this function for clarity (see above). Any suggestion?
How about ENODEV ?
>
> --
> Adrien Mazarguil
> 6WIND
