Hi Thomas, > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 9:21 AM > To: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com> > Cc: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; > ophi...@mellanox.com > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] app/testpmd: allow detaching a port not > closed > > 17/10/2018 08:26, Andrew Rybchenko: > > On 10/17/18 4:54 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > The testpmd application aim is for testing; so order of operations > > > should not be enforced. > > > > > > There was a test to forbid detaching before closing a port. > > > However, it may interesting to test what happens in such case. > > > It is possible for a PMD to automatically close the port when detaching. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > > I'm afraid it could be a problem which the patch, since port close > > ensures that the port is not used for traffic forwarding. > > Right now the check is gone and we can detach port which is used for > > traffic forwarding on separate data cores. > > So, almost guaranteed crash. > > Yes I can duplicate this check in detach_port().
I agree with Andrew that this will cause a crash. I don't understand why the sequence is changing here. The close(), detach() sequence has been in place since the port hot plug work some years ago, user applications may already be using this sequence. Regards, Bernard.
