On 3/3/2017 4:56 AM, Wei Zhao wrote:
> Add vf port reset command into testpmd project, it is the interface for
> user to reset vf port.
I think it is better to change the order of this patch, first implement
new API in ethdev, later this patch implement new API in testpmd.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Zhao <wei.zh...@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo...@intel.com>
> ---
> app/test-pmd/cmdline.c | 17 ++++++++++---
> app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 67
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> app/test-pmd/testpmd.h | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> index 43fc636..59db672 100644
> --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> @@ -596,6 +596,9 @@ static void cmd_help_long_parsed(void *parsed_result,
> "port close (port_id|all)\n"
> " Close all ports or port_id.\n\n"
>
> + "port reset (port_id|all)\n"
> + " Reset all ports or port_id.\n\n"
It is not clear what reset does to the port. This is only for VF right?
Adding reset here hides that it is for VF.
<...>
> @@ -601,6 +602,7 @@ init_config(void)
> if (init_fwd_streams() < 0)
> rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "FAIL from init_fwd_streams()\n");
>
> +
This may be unintentional.
<...>
> @@ -1350,6 +1363,10 @@ start_port(portid_t pid)
> return -1;
> }
> }
> +
> + /* register reset interrupt callback */
> + rte_eth_dev_callback_register(pi, RTE_ETH_EVENT_INTR_RESET,
> + reset_event_callback, NULL);
So each port started will register a callback to handle reset events,
1- isn't this overkill for the usecases that does not need this reset?
2- should there be an unregister event?
3- This issue can be fixed in testpmd, but for user application, is this
the suggested way?
> if (port->need_reconfig_queues > 0) {
> port->need_reconfig_queues = 0;
> /* setup tx queues */
> @@ -1559,6 +1576,56 @@ close_port(portid_t pid)
> }
>
> void
> +reset_port(portid_t pid)
> +{
> + portid_t pi;
> + struct rte_port *port;
> +
> + if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
> + return;
> +
> + printf("Closing ports...\n");
> +
> + FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
Since we already know the port_id (pid), why iterating through all ports?
> + if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
> + continue;
> +
> + if (port_is_forwarding(pi) != 0 && test_done == 0) {
> + printf("Please remove port %d from forwarding "
> + "configuration.\n", pi);
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + if (port_is_bonding_slave(pi)) {
> + printf("Please remove port %d from "
> + "bonded device.\n", pi);
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + if (!reset_ports[pi]) {
> + printf("vf must get reset port %d info from "
> + "pf before reset.\n", pi);
> + continue;
> + }
Can there be a timing issue here? Is it possible that reset occurred
already and we are in the middle of the callback function when this
check done?
<...>
