On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:32:23AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 1/23/2017 11:24 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:05:25AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > >>>>>>>> lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 2 +- > >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > >>>>>>>> b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > >>>>>>>> index 4790faf..61f44e2 100644 > >>>>>>>> --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > >>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > >>>>>>>> @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ struct rte_eth_dev * > >>>>>>>> return NULL; > >>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> - memset(&rte_eth_devices[port_id], 0, sizeof(*eth_dev->data)); > >>>>>>>> + memset(&rte_eth_dev_data[port_id], 0, sizeof(struct > >>>>>>>> rte_eth_dev_data)); > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Not directly related to the this issue, but, after fix, this may have > >>>>>>> issues with secondary process. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> There were patches sent to fix this. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I mean this one: > >>>>>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-January/054422.html > >>>>> > >>>>> d948f596fee2 ("ethdev: fix port data mismatched in multiple process > >>>>> model") should have fixed it. > >>>> > >>>> Think about case, where secondary process uses a virtual PMD, which does > >>>> a rte_eth_dev_allocate() call, shouldn't this corrupt primary process > >>>> device data? > >>> > >>> Yes, it may. However, I doubt that's the typical usage. > >> > >> But this is a use case, and broken now, > > > > I thought it was broken since the beginning? > > No, memset(&rte_eth_dev_data[port_id], ...) breaks it.
Oh, you were talking about that particular case Remy's patch meant to fix. > >> and fix is known. > > > > And there is already a fix? > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-January/054422.html Yes, it should fix that issue. One question: do Remy or you regularly run some multiple process test cases (and with vdev both in primary and secondary process)? --yliu
