Hi Michael
> > On 2016/2/2 19:03, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > > > [...] > > >>>> I don't think i40e miss it, because it not the right please to disable > >>>> interrupt. > >>>> because all interrupts are enabled in init stage. > >>>> > >>>> Actually, ixgbe enable the interrupt in init stage, but in dev_start, it > >>>> disable it > >>>> first and re-enable, so it just the same with doing nothing about > >>>> interrupt. > >>>> > >>>> Just think below: > >>>> > >>>> 1. start the port.(interrupt already enabled in init stage, disable --> > >>>> re-enable) > >>>> 2. stop the port.(disable interrupt) > >>>> 3. start port again(Try to disable, but failed, already disabled) > >>>> > >>>> Would you think the code has issue? > >>> [Zhang, Helin] in ixgbe PMD, it can be seen that uninit() calls > >>> dev_close(), > >>> which calls dev_stop(). So I think the disabling can be done only in > >>> dev_stop(). > >>> All others can make use of dev_stop to disable the interrupt. > >> As I said, if it is in dev_stop, it will has issue when dev_start --> > >> dev_stop --> dev_start, this also could applied in i40e and fm10k. If > >> you want to put it in dev_stop, better to remove enable interrupts in > >> init stage, and only put it in dev_start. > > We can't remove enabling interrupt at init stage and put it only in > > dev_start(). > > That means PF couldn't handle interrupts from VF till dev_start() will be > > executed on PF > > - which could never happen. > > For same reason we can't disable all interrupts in dev_stop(). > > See: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-November/027238.html > > Hi, Konstantin > > Yes, you are right. > > So the only way to fix this issue should remove it in dev_stop(), and > left it in uinit() stage, which my patch does. > > Am I right? Yes, I think so. PF should be able to receive MBOX interrupts after dev_stop(). Konstantin > > Thanks, > Michael > > Konstantin > > > >> Thanks, > >> Michael > >>> Regards, > >>> Helin > >>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Michael > >>>> > >>>>> Maybe we can follow fm10k's style. > >>>>> > >>>>>> On other hand, if we remove it in dev_stop, any side effect? In ixgbe > >>>>>> start, it will always disable it first and then re-enable it, so it's > >>>>>> safe. > >>>>> I think you mean we can disable intr anyway even if it has been > >>>>> disabled. > >>>> Actually, we couldn't, DPDK call VFIO ioctl to kernel to disable > >>>> interrupts, and > >>>> if we try disable twice, it will return and error. > >>>> That's why I mean we need a flag to show the interrupts stats. If it > >>>> already > >>>> disabled, we do not need call in to kernel. just return and give a > >>>> warning > >>>> message. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Michael > >>>> > >>>>> Sounds more like why we don't > >>>>> need this patch :) > >>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Michael > >
