On 11/18/2021 5:33 PM, Junxiao Shi wrote:
Bugzilla ID: 888
Fixes: febc855b358e ("ethdev: forbid closing started device")
Signed-off-by: Junxiao Shi <g...@mail1.yoursunny.com>
Thanks Junxiao, +1 to this fix, cc'ed memif maintainer Jakub.
---
drivers/net/memif/rte_eth_memif.c | 11 ++++++++---
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/memif/rte_eth_memif.c
b/drivers/net/memif/rte_eth_memif.c
index 43d7378329..e3d523af57 100644
--- a/drivers/net/memif/rte_eth_memif.c
+++ b/drivers/net/memif/rte_eth_memif.c
@@ -1260,6 +1260,13 @@ memif_dev_start(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
return ret;
}
+static int
+memif_dev_stop(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
+{
+ memif_disconnect(dev);
Is the 'memif_dev_stop()' safe to be called multiple times?
If 'memif_dev_close()' calls 'memif_dev_stop()' (see below), it is possible
to call 'memif_dev_stop()' multiple times, so it should be protected.
+ return 0;
+}
+
static int
memif_dev_close(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
{
@@ -1268,7 +1275,6 @@ memif_dev_close(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_PRIMARY) {
memif_msg_enq_disconnect(pmd->cc, "Device closed", 0);
- memif_disconnect(dev);
for (i = 0; i < dev->data->nb_rx_queues; i++)
(*dev->dev_ops->rx_queue_release)(dev, i);
@@ -1276,8 +1282,6 @@ memif_dev_close(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
(*dev->dev_ops->tx_queue_release)(dev, i);
memif_socket_remove_device(dev);
- } else {
- memif_disconnect(dev);
Should we add 'memif_dev_stop()' within the close function?
Otherwise we are relying on user to stop, but at least in remove path
('rte_pmd_memif_remove()') that may not be the case.
}
rte_free(dev->process_private);
@@ -1515,6 +1519,7 @@ memif_rx_queue_intr_disable(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
uint16_t qid __rte_unused)
static const struct eth_dev_ops ops = {
.dev_start = memif_dev_start,
+ .dev_stop = memif_dev_stop,
.dev_close = memif_dev_close,
.dev_infos_get = memif_dev_info,
.dev_configure = memif_dev_configure,
