Hi Reshma,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pattan, Reshma
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 4:04 PM
> To: Kerlin, MarcinX <marcinx.kerlin at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>;
> thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com; Kerlin, MarcinX <marcinx.kerlin at intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/2] librte_ether: add protection against
> overwrite device data
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Marcin Kerlin
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 12:13 PM
> > To: dev at dpdk.org
> > Cc: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>;
> > thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com; Kerlin, MarcinX <marcinx.kerlin at intel.com>
> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/2] librte_ether: add protection
> > against overwrite device data
> >
> > +int
> > +rte_eth_dev_release_dev_data(uint8_t port_id) {
> > + char device[RTE_ETH_NAME_MAX_LEN];
> > + struct rte_eth_dev_data *eth_dev_data = NULL;
> > +
> > +
> > @@ -631,6 +691,8 @@ int
> > rte_eth_dev_detach(uint8_t port_id, char *name) {
> > struct rte_pci_addr addr;
> > + struct rte_eth_dev_data *eth_dev_data = NULL;
> > + char device[RTE_ETH_NAME_MAX_LEN];
> > int ret = -1;
> >
> > if (name == NULL) {
> > @@ -642,6 +704,15 @@ rte_eth_dev_detach(uint8_t port_id, char *name)
> > if (rte_eth_dev_is_detachable(port_id))
> > goto err;
> >
> > + /* get device name by port id */
> > + if (rte_eth_dev_get_name_by_port(port_id, device))
> > + goto err;
> > +
> > + /* look for an entry in the shared device data */
> > + eth_dev_data = rte_eth_dev_get_dev_data_by_name(device);
> > + if (eth_dev_data == NULL)
> > + goto err;
> > +
> > if (rte_eth_dev_get_device_type(port_id) == RTE_ETH_DEV_PCI) {
> > ret = rte_eth_dev_get_addr_by_port(port_id, &addr);
> > if (ret < 0)
> > @@ -661,6 +732,9 @@ rte_eth_dev_detach(uint8_t port_id, char *name)
> > goto err;
> > }
> >
> > + /* clear an entry in the shared device data */
> > + memset(eth_dev_data, 0, sizeof(struct rte_eth_dev_data));
> > +
> > return 0;
> >
>
> In this function, the new code chunks together is nothing but the function "
> rte_eth_dev_release_dev_data()".
> So u can call the function itself rather than a duplicate code.
It was intentional, reason:
If I call function in place:
(1) beginning: then I lose device name for function below
rte_eth_dev_detach_vdev (1.1):
a) this is important for drivers that hold name in shared
rte_eth_dev_data[]
b) not important for drivers that prepare own rte_eth_dev_data e.g pcap
(rte_eth_pcap.c, line 816)
(2) end: then I lose device name for my function rte_eth_dev_release_dev_data,
because in the above function
rte_eth_dev_detach_vdev (1.1) for e.g pcap is call rte_free(eth_dev->data)
which removes me a pointer to the
name (rte_eth_pcap.c, line 1079).
rte_eth_dev_detach (uint8_t port_id, char *name){
...
(1) rte_eth_dev_release_dev_data(port_id);
if (rte_eth_dev_get_device_type(port_id) == RTE_ETH_DEV_PCI) {
ret = rte_eth_dev_get_addr_by_port(port_id, &addr);
if (ret < 0)
goto err;
ret = rte_eth_dev_detach_pdev(port_id, &addr);
if (ret < 0)
goto err;
snprintf(name, RTE_ETH_NAME_MAX_LEN,
"%04x:%02x:%02x.%d",
addr.domain, addr.bus,
addr.devid, addr.function);
} else {
(1.1) ret = rte_eth_dev_detach_vdev(port_id, name);
if (ret < 0)
goto err;
}
(2) rte_eth_dev_release_dev_data(port_id);
...
}
This is reason why I keep name at the beginning but I release the name at the
end function after detach.
At this point I do not see how the code directly replace by one function call.
Regards,
Marcin
>
> Thanks,
> Reshma
