> >> The secordary process should not close the crypto device when
> >> it exits because the primary process still manage the device.
> >> There is no reason with occurring error log below when
> >> secordary process exits without any operation on the crypto
> >> device while primary process starts the device.
> >>
> >> Case situation:
> >> eal_bus_cleanup has been added in rte_eal_cleanup. But for
> >> secondary process, eal_bus_cleanup will trigger vdev_cleanup
> >> which trigger rte_vdev_driver to remove. Then crypto devices
> >> will execute ipsec_mb_remove to rte_cryptodev_pmd_destroy.
> >> Finially, rte_cryptodev_close will be called by secordary
> >> process exit.
> >>
> >> Error logs occur as below when the secordary process exit:
> >> CRYPTODEV: rte_cryptodev_close() line 1453: Device 0 must be
> >> stopped before closing
> >>
> >> Function call trace: rte_eal_cleanup->eal_bus_cleanup->
> >> vdev_cleanup->rte_vdev_driver_remove->ipsec_mb_remove->
> >> rte_cryptodev_pmd_destroy->rte_cryptodev_pmd_release_device->
> >> rte_cryptodev_close
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yang Ming <ming.1.y...@nokia-sbell.com>
> >> ---
> >> lib/cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c | 2 +-
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/lib/cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c b/lib/cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> >> index 85a4b46ac9..ed1021f635 100644
> >> --- a/lib/cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> >> +++ b/lib/cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> >> @@ -1142,7 +1142,7 @@ rte_cryptodev_pmd_release_device(struct
> >> rte_cryptodev *cryptodev)
> >> cryptodev_fp_ops_reset(rte_crypto_fp_ops + dev_id);
> >>
> >> /* Close device only if device operations have been set */
> >> - if (cryptodev->dev_ops) {
> >> + if (cryptodev->dev_ops && (rte_eal_process_type() ==
> >> RTE_PROC_PRIMARY)) {
> >> ret = rte_cryptodev_close(dev_id);
> >> if (ret < 0)
> >> return ret;
> > I believe dev_close is actually not required in pmd_release_device.
> > Dev_close need to be called from the application separately before it is
> > released
> > which I think is already happening.
> >
> > Adding more people for review.
> >
> >
> Hi Akhil, I suppose the change of removing `dev_close` in
> `pmd_release_device` requires much more effort and commit size because
> this change will impact a lot of examples and cases. As there is no more
> comments from other people, can we accept this patch as a little
> improvement for the second process's scenario and wait for the entire
> improvement from anyone who is interested in this entire work?
Acked-by: Akhil Goyal <gak...@marvell.com>
Applied to dpdk-next-crypto
