20/07/2018 17:35, Wiles, Keith:
> > On Jul 20, 2018, at 4:15 AM, Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote:
> > + /* FIXME: handle replies.nb_received > 1 */
>
> I am not a big fan of having TODO or FIXME comments in the code.
What don't you like in such comments?
> Can we remove them and just describe the problem and what would happen
> or not happen if the condition occurs?
You mean describing the problem in the code?
> If we need to add this support in the future then we need to put these
> in a enhancement tracker or someplace else.
The limitation is documented in the guide (limit of 8 queues).
> > + reply = &replies.msgs[0];
[...]
> > + /* FIXME: split message if more queues than RTE_MP_MAX_FD_NUM */
>
> Here too.
This limitation is related to the previous one (send only one message,
receive only message).
> > + RTE_ASSERT(reply.num_fds <= RTE_MP_MAX_FD_NUM);
> > +
> > + /* Send reply */
> > + strcpy(reply.name, request->name);
> > + strcpy(reply_param->port_name, request_param->port_name);
>
> Normally we use the snprintf or strlcpy() functions for the above should we
> do that here too?
Yes it looks to be a good idea.
> > @@ -1946,8 +2056,18 @@ rte_pmd_tap_probe(struct rte_vdev_device *dev)
> > TAP_LOG(ERR, "Failed to probe %s", name);
> > return -1;
> > }
> > - /* TODO: request info from primary to set up Rx and Tx */
> > eth_dev->dev_ops = &ops;
> > + eth_dev->rx_pkt_burst = pmd_rx_burst;
> > + eth_dev->tx_pkt_burst = pmd_tx_burst;
> > +
> > + if (!rte_eal_primary_proc_alive(NULL)) {
> > + TAP_LOG(ERR, "Primary process is missing");
> > + return -1;
> > + }
> > + ret = tap_mp_attach_queues(name, eth_dev);
> > + if (ret != 0)
> > + return -1;
>
> Does the call above need to be wrapped using if secondary process or is this
> for both primary and secondary?
It is already in a "secondary only" block.
> > + /* Register IPC feed callback */
> > + ret = rte_mp_action_register(TAP_MP_KEY, tap_mp_sync_queues);
> > + if (ret < 0 && rte_errno != EEXIST) {
> > + TAP_LOG(ERR, "%s: Failed to register IPC callback: %s",
> > + tuntap_name, strerror(rte_errno));
> > + goto leave;
> > + }
>
> Same for this one as above?
This code path is executed only in primary or creation of port in secondary.
I think it is fine.
However I am thinking it should be registered only once for all TAP ports.
