在 2021/10/12 23:33, Thomas Monjalon 写道:
12/10/2021 13:39, Huisong Li:
The rte_eth_dev_pci_generic_remove() will be called to detach an Ethernet
device when App calls rte_dev_remove() to detach a pci device. In addition,
the rte_eth_dev_close() can also detach an Ethernet device.
In secondary process, if App first calls rte_eth_dev_close() and then calls
rte_dev_remove(), because rte_eth_dev_close() doesn't clear "eth_dev->data"
It would be clearer if you start this sentence with:
"In secondary process, rte_eth_dev_close() doesn't clear eth_dev->data."
Then you can explain that if calling rte_dev_remove() after rte_eth_dev_close(),
etc...
Right. Thanks!😁
, the address of the released Ethernet device can still be found by device
name. As a result, the Ethernet device will be released repeatedly in this
case. The state of the Ethernet device is equal to RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED after
calling rte_eth_dev_close(). Use this state to avoid this problem.
Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuis...@huawei.com>
---
+ /*
+ * In secondary process, if applications first call rte_eth_dev_close()
+ * and then call this interface, because rte_eth_dev_close() doesn't
+ * clear eth_dev->data, the address of the released Ethernet device can
+ * still be found by device name. As a result, the Ethernet device will
+ * be released repeatedly in this case.
+ * The state of the Ethernet device is equal to RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED after
+ * calling rte_eth_dev_close(). Use this state to avoid this problem.
This is a comment for the commit log.
Inside the code, we should be more to the point.
I suggest this comment:
/* A released port can be found by its name in shared memory. */
ack
+ */
+ if (rte_eal_process_type() != RTE_PROC_PRIMARY &&
Better to directly compare with RTE_PROC_SECONDARY
ack
+ eth_dev->state == RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED) {
+ RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(INFO, "The ethdev port has been released.");
Not sure we need any log here.
ack
+ return 0;
+ }
.
