On 3/9/2015 10:22 AM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
> 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'.
Because some times RTE_PORT_ALL will pass to port start/stop/close, but
the check will be invalid.
Actually, we should see it as valid, then all port valid check will work
for start/stop/close action
>
>>> 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?
Yes, just consider this situation, the valid port number are [0, 1],
but you try to to stop prot number 2, what will happen?
Noting will be show, at least we need an error log.
So it must be check.
Thanks,
Michael
> 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];
>
>
