Adding to mailing list for the last update
> -----Original Message----- > From: Lu, Wenzhuo > Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 1:19 PM > To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Varghese, Vipin > <vipin.vargh...@intel.com> > Cc: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Zhang, Helin > <helin.zh...@intel.com>; Xu, Qian Q <qian.q...@intel.com> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 02/20] net/ice: support device > initialization > > Yes, after discussing with colleagues, I think this feature is not well > designed and > implemented. Will remove it from this release. > > > Best regards > Wenzhuo Lu > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Zhang, Qi Z > > Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 3:46 PM > > To: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; Varghese, Vipin > > <vipin.vargh...@intel.com> > > Cc: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Zhang, Helin > > <helin.zh...@intel.com>; Xu, Qian Q <qian.q...@intel.com> > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 02/20] net/ice: support device > > initialization > > > > Yes, I saw that, so there is no gap for this, we can simply set this > > feature to N in our current release. > > > > Thanks > > Qi > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Lu, Wenzhuo > > > Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 3:43 PM > > > To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Varghese, Vipin > > > <vipin.vargh...@intel.com> > > > Cc: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Zhang, Helin > > > <helin.zh...@intel.com>; Xu, Qian Q <qian.q...@intel.com> > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 02/20] net/ice: support device > > > initialization > > > > > > Hi Qi, > > > I think we have "secondary support", it's named as " Multiprocess > > > aware". We can omit that. > > > > > > Best regards > > > Wenzhuo Lu > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Zhang, Qi Z > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 3:31 PM > > > > To: Varghese, Vipin <vipin.vargh...@intel.com> > > > > Cc: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo > > > > <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; Zhang, Helin <helin.zh...@intel.com>; Xu, > > > > Qian Q <qian.q...@intel.com> > > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 02/20] net/ice: support device > > > > initialization > > > > > > > > Hi Vipin: > > > > > > > > I saw you observed the missing feature description of CPK > > > > document, from my view it's not a CPK specific issue, but a > > > > generic issue as missing item in exist nic feature list. > > > > I'm thinking if you could summarize all the gap from DTS view > > > > and > > > > raise a Jira case to DPDK team, so we can add this to future > > > > development plan. > > > > > > > > So far what I captured is > > > > 1. tx loopback > > > > 2. secondary support > > > > > > > > What do you think about it? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Qi > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Lu, Wenzhuo > > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 3:04 PM > > > > > To: Varghese, Vipin <vipin.vargh...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > > > > > Cc: Yang, Qiming <qiming.y...@intel.com>; Li, Xiaoyun > > > > > <xiaoyun...@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com> > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 02/20] net/ice: support device > > > > > initialization > > > > > > > > > > Hi Vipin, > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Varghese, Vipin > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 2:31 PM > > > > > > To: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > > > > > > Cc: Yang, Qiming <qiming.y...@intel.com>; Li, Xiaoyun > > > > > > <xiaoyun...@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com> > > > > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 02/20] net/ice: support > > > > > > device initialization > > > > > > > > > > > > snipped > > > > > > > > > > > + ice_init_controlq_parameter(hw); > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > + ret = ice_init_hw(hw); > > > > > > > > > > > + if (ret) { > > > > > > > > > > > + PMD_INIT_LOG(ERR, "Failed to initialize > > HW"); > > > > > > > > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Definition for ice_init_hw in patch 01/20 does not > > > > > > > > > > check for > > > > > > > > > > primary- secondary. Are we allowing secondary to > > > > > > > > > > invoke ice_init_hw if it is initialized by primary? > > > > > > > > > It's a patch split issue. We add the check in later patch. > > > > > > > > > Will put it in this patch in the new version. > > > > > > > > Suggestion in current patch if comment is kept it will be > > > > > > > > easier to understand that it is taken care in future patch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Example patch 2/20 has comment stating adding support in > > > > > > > > patch > > > > 5/20. > > > > > > > > Then in patch 5/20 it removes the ToDo it is easier to > > > > > > > > read and understand the flow > > > > > > > I mean I made a mistake that put the check code in a later patch. > > > > > > > Actually this code should be put in this patch. I plan to correct > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > But currently I think we're running out of time. I prefer > > > > > > > not supporting multi process in this release. > > > > > > Thanks for clarifying the same. It will helpful to add 'to do > > > > > > or future items' in cover letter, code comment and release > > > > > > documents which helps reviewers, early adopters and later > > maintainers. > > > > > I'd like to suggest focusing on what we have. Sorry, for many > > > > > reasons it's not appropriate to talk too much about we'll do in > > > > > the > > future. > > > > > Like Internally we have a plan, but it keeps changing. Like > > > > > something is still > > > > under investigation... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > + PMD_INIT_LOG(INFO, "FW %d.%d.%05d API %d.%d", > > > > > > > > > > > + hw->fw_maj_ver, hw->fw_min_ver, > > > hw->fw_build, > > > > > > > > > > > + hw->api_maj_ver, hw->api_min_ver); > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Snipped > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > +static int > > > > > > > > > > > +ice_dev_uninit(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) { > > > > > > > > > > > + struct ice_hw *hw = ICE_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_HW(dev- > > >data- > > > > > > > > > > > >dev_private); > > > > > > > > > > > + struct ice_pf *pf = ICE_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_PF(dev- > > >data- > > > > > > > > > > >dev_private); > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > + ICE_PROC_SECONDARY_CHECK_RET_0; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should not we check if primary is alive and NIC is > > > > > > > > > > used or initialized by primary then ' > > > > ICE_PROC_SECONDARY_CHECK_RET_0'? > > > > > > > > > I think it's not a critical issue if the process is > > > > > > > > > terminate abnormally without > > > > > > > > uninit. > > > > > > > > > Comparing with that, I have more concern about this > > > > > > > > > scenario, if the primary process exit and uninit the > > > > > > > > > resource, the secondary process is left > > > > > > > > alone. > > > > > > > > Since primary is application which reserves the huge page > > > > > > > > memory (malloc, zmalloc, memzone). So when secondary is > > > > > > > > killed or stop whole huge pages are released. I am bit > > > > > > > > confused what is check > > > > > > suggested affecting? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And also > > > > > > > > > to me it looks not a good solution to change every PMD > > > > > > > > > for this > > > > feature. > > > > > > > > I am not aware about why other PMD are done in specific way. > > > > > > > > In my humble opinion, if there is a right way let it be > > > > > > > > used rather than doing other way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't > > > > > > > > > see many PMD support it. Maybe we'd better not support > > > > > > > > > it now and wait for a better whole picture. > > > > > > > > I wait for others to comment to this approach. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > snipped
