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];
