30/04/2019 00:28, Ferruh Yigit: > On 4/29/2019 9:14 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 29/04/2019 19:00, Ferruh Yigit: > >> On 4/26/2019 6:09 AM, Xiaolong Ye wrote: > >>> Since 18.11, it is suggested that driver should release all its private > >>> resources at the dev_close routine. So all resources previously released > >>> in remove routine are now released at the dev_close routine, and the > >>> dev_close routine will be called in driver remove routine in order to > >>> support removing a device without closing its ports. > >>> > >>> Above behavior changes are supported by setting RTE_ETH_DEV_CLOSE_REMOVE > >>> flag during probe stage. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Xiaolong Ye <xiaolong...@intel.com> > >> > >> <...> > >> > >>> @@ -936,14 +940,7 @@ rte_pmd_af_xdp_remove(struct rte_vdev_device *dev) > >>> if (eth_dev == NULL) > >>> return -1; > >>> > >>> - internals = eth_dev->data->dev_private; > >>> - > >>> - rte_ring_free(internals->umem->buf_ring); > >>> - rte_memzone_free(internals->umem->mz); > >>> - rte_free(internals->umem); > >>> - > >>> - rte_eth_dev_release_port(eth_dev); > >> > >> I thinks we should keep 'rte_eth_dev_release_port()' in '.remove()' path, > >> the 'RTE_ETH_DEV_CLOSE_REMOVE' flag will take care of this in > >> 'rte_eth_dev_close()' but still needed in '.remove()' path. > > > > I don't understand your comment. > > Calling the close function looks the right thing to do in "remove". > > No concern on calling the 'close'. > My comment was to keep 'rte_eth_dev_release_port()' which this patch removes.
rte_eth_dev_release_port() is called in eth_dev_close(), isn't it? > >>> - > >>> + eth_dev_close(eth_dev);
