On 04/30, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >On 4/30/2019 3:06 AM, Ye Xiaolong wrote: >> Hi, Ferruh >> >> On 04/29, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> >> remove() would call eth_dev_close which includes the >> rte_eth_dev_release_port(). > >'eth_dev_close()' doesn't call the 'rte_eth_dev_release_port()', and it >shouldn't really, am I missing something?
Sorry, it's the rte_eth_dev_close that calls rte_eth_dev_release_port, here in .remove we do need to call rte_eth_dev_release_port explicitly. will send a new version. Thanks, Xiaolong > >> >> Thanks, >> Xiaolong >> >>>> - >>>> + eth_dev_close(eth_dev); >>>> >>>> return 0; >>>> } >>>> >>> >
