On 2015/03/06 22:53, De Lara Guarch, Pablo wrote: > Hi Michael, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Qiu, Michael >> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 1:33 PM >> To: Tetsuya Mukawa; dev at dpdk.org >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: Fix port validation code of "port >> stop all" command >> >> Hi, Tetsuya and Pablo >> This is not a full fix, I have generate the full fix patch two days ago,
Hi Michel, I am sorry for late replying, and thanks for your work. > Sorry I did not see this earlier. Did you upstream this patch already? > I acked Tetsuya's patch, as it was simple and works, but I cannot find > this one. > > Thanks, > Pablo > >> See below: >> >> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c >> index 49be819..ec53923 100644 >> --- a/app/test-pmd/config.c >> +++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c >> @@ -384,6 +384,9 @@ port_infos_display(portid_t port_id) >> int >> port_id_is_invalid(portid_t port_id, enum print_warning warning) >> { >> + if (port_id == (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL) >> + return 0; >> + I am not clearly sure that we need to add above 'if statement'. >> if (ports[port_id].enabled) >> return 0; >> >> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c >> index e556b4c..1c4c651 100644 >> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c >> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c >> @@ -1326,6 +1326,9 @@ start_port(portid_t pid) >> return -1; >> } >> >> + if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN)) >> + return 0; >> + Same as above. >> if (init_fwd_streams() < 0) { >> printf("Fail from init_fwd_streams()\n"); >> return -1; >> @@ -1482,10 +1485,14 @@ stop_port(portid_t pid) >> dcb_test = 0; >> dcb_config = 0; >> } >> + >> + if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN)) >> + return; >> + Same as above. >> printf("Stopping ports...\n"); >> >> FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) { >> - if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi) >> + if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL) >> continue; >> >> port = &ports[pi]; >> @@ -1517,10 +1524,13 @@ close_port(portid_t pid) >> return; >> } >> >> + if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN)) >> + return; >> + Same as above. >> printf("Closing ports...\n"); >> >> FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) { >> - if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi) >> + if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL) >> continue; >> >> port = &ports[pi]; >> -- >> 1.9.3 FOREACH_PORT() returns valid ports, so is it not enough to check like above? I am not clearly understand which case we need to add above extra if statements. Could you please describe? But I agree we cannot use my previous patch. We need to fix not only stop_port() but also close_port() like start_port(). Thanks, Tetsuya >> Thanks, >> Michael >> >> On 3/5/2015 3:31 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote: >>> When "port stop all" is executed, the command doesn't work as it should >>> because of wrong port validation. The patch fixes this issue. >>> >>> Reported-by: Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa at igel.co.jp> >>> --- >>> app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c >>> index 61291be..bb65342 100644 >>> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c >>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c >>> @@ -1484,7 +1484,7 @@ stop_port(portid_t pid) >>> printf("Stopping ports...\n"); >>> >>> FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) { >>> - if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi) >>> + if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL) >>> continue; >>> >>> port = &ports[pi];