Hi Thomas, On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 06:20:53PM +0530, Nithin Dabilpuram wrote: > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 10:59:38AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 17/05/2019 10:55, Nithin Dabilpuram: > > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 09:27:22AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 15/05/2019 08:52, Nithin Dabilpuram: > > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 05:39:30PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > 13/05/2019 13:21, Nithin Dabilpuram: > > > > > > > With the latest published interface of > > > > > > > rte_eal_hotplug_[add,remove](), and rte_eth_dev_close(), > > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_close() would cleanup all the data structures of > > > > > > > port's eth dev leaving the device common resource intact > > > > > > > if RTE_ETH_DEV_CLOSE_REMOVE is set in dev flags. > > > > > > > So "port detach" (~hotplug remove) should be able to work, > > > > > > > with device identifier like "port attach" as eth_dev could have > > > > > > > been closed already and rte_eth_devices[port_id] reused. > > > > > > > > > > > > "port attach" uses devargs as identifier because there > > > > > > is no port id before creating it. But "detach port" uses > > > > > > logically the port id to close. > > > > > > > > > > But if "port close" was already called on that port, > > > > > eth_dev->state would be set as RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED and > > > > > that port id could be reused. > > > > > So after "port close" if we call "port detach", isn't it > > > > > incorrect to use the same port id ? > > > > > > > > Yes it is incorrect to close a port which is already closed :) > > > > > > > > > > > This change alters "port detach" cmdline interface to > > > > > > > work with device identifier like "port attach". > > > > > > > > > > > > The word "port" means an ethdev port, so it should be > > > > > > referenced with a port id. > > > > > > If you want to close an EAL rte_device, then you should > > > > > > rename the command. > > > > > > But testpmd purpose should be to work with ethdev ports only. > > > > > > > > > > Renaming the command to "detach <identifier>" ? > > > > > > > > Yes something like that. > > > > But why do you want to manage rte_device in testpmd? > > > > Being able to close ports in not enough? > > > > Please describe a scenario. > > > > > > > > > > We just want to support testing hotplug detach along with > > > hotplug attach from testpmd. Currently there is no way to detach > > > if we close the port first. > > > > OK > So can I send next revision with command renamed to "detach <identifier>" ?
Any info on this ? I can even add it as another cmd without disturbing existing command if needed. > > > > > Another reason is that in our new PMD, for detaching one specific port, > > > we need more than one try as the PMD might return -EAGAIN. > > > So with the current "port detach" implementation, after closing the port, > > > if PMD returns -EAGAIN for rte_dev_remove() call, there is no way to > > > try it again. > > > > This is a bug. > > Should we catch -EAGAIN somewhere? > > It is already caught in local_dev_remove() and > rte_dev_remove() fails. Only problem as I said below is > in testpmd if first call to detach_port_device() i.e handler of "port > detach", > rte_dev_remove() returns -EAGAIN and PMD cleaned up the resources partially > like eth_dev > resources, the second time call cannot work port_id will not be valid anymore. > > > > >
