On 4/29/2019 11:34 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 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?
No, 'eth_dev_close()' is local 'dev_close()' ops, the one to clear driver private resources. I assume it is confused with 'rte_eth_dev_close()' ... > >>>>> - >>>>> + eth_dev_close(eth_dev); > > >
