On 8/14/2018 8:46 PM, Matan Azrad wrote: > Hi Stephen > > From: Stephen Hemminger >> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 05:52:20 +0000 >> Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Stephen >>> >>> From: Stephen Hemminger >>>> The rte_eth_dev_owner_unset function is unusable because it always >>>> returns -EINVAL. This is because the magic (unowned) value is >>>> flagged as not valid. >>>> >>> >>> It's OK to raise an error when you do unset for unowned device. >>> It means that unset owner should be called for owned device. >>> >> >> Original code was broken. The following would always fail. >> >> rte_eth_dev_owner_new(&owner.id); >> sprintf(owner.name, "example"); >> rte_eth_dev_owner_set(port_id, &owner); >> rte_eth_dev_owner_unset(port_id, owner.id); >> >> That is because of: >> rte_eth_dev_owner_unset(port_id, owner_id) >> _rte_eth_dev_owner_set(port_id, owner_id, &new_owner) >> << new_owner.id == RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER (0) >> >> >> if (!rte_eth_is_valid_owner_id(new_owner->id) && << >> new_owner->id == RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER (which is flagged as invalid) >> !rte_eth_is_valid_owner_id(old_owner_id)) >> return -EINVAL; >> > > But both should be invalid the new owner and the old owner(&&) to raise an > EINVAL error. > > In the aforementioned check above the old owner should be valid.
It looks rte_eth_dev_owner_unset() works, updating patch as rejected.
