On 9/23/2020 9:44 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
23/09/2020 18:44, Ferruh Yigit:
On 9/13/2020 11:07 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
The flag RTE_ETH_DEV_CLOSE_REMOVE is set so all port resources
can be freed by rte_eth_dev_close().
Freeing of private port resources is moved
from the ".remove(device)" to the ".dev_close(port)" operation.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
---
drivers/net/pcap/rte_eth_pcap.c | 29 ++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/pcap/rte_eth_pcap.c b/drivers/net/pcap/rte_eth_pcap.c
index 76e704a65a..a946fa9a1a 100644
--- a/drivers/net/pcap/rte_eth_pcap.c
+++ b/drivers/net/pcap/rte_eth_pcap.c
@@ -734,6 +734,12 @@ eth_dev_close(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
unsigned int i;
struct pmd_internals *internals = dev->data->dev_private;
+ if (internals == NULL)
+ return 0;
Not sure if this check needed, can 'internals' be null at this stage?
I think yes we need to protect against a double close.
>
'eth_dev_close()' can be called by 'pmd_pcap_remove()' or
'rte_eth_dev_close()' both should be blocked to call 'eth_dev_close()'
after first close.
And same thing for all PMDs, if they don't need, this one also shouldn't
need.
But perhaps need to add 'RTE_PROC_PRIMARY' check.
Yes but that's not the goal of this patch.
Yes, the check should be there already, but now more stuff added to
close dev_ops, and calling it from secondary will cause problem. Since
you are already here, I think would be nice to add it.
+ rte_free(dev->process_private);
Can we move freeing 'process_private' to 'rte_eth_dev_release_port()'
Yes we could.
