Hi Matan, On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 05:52:55PM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote: > Hi Adrien, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com] > > Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 6:33 PM > > To: Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com> > > Cc: Nélio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranje...@6wind.com>; dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] net/mlx5: support device removal event > > > > Hi Matan, > > > > One comment I have is, while this patch adds support for RMV, it also > > silently > > addresses a bug (see large comment you added to > > priv_link_status_update()). > > > > This should be split in two commits, with the fix part coming first and CC > > sta...@dpdk.org, and a second commit adding RMV support proper. > > > > Actually, the mlx4 bug was not appeared in the mlx5 previous code, > Probably because the RMV interrupt was not implemented in mlx5 before this > patch.
Good point, no RMV could occur before it is implemented, however a dedicated commit for the fix itself (i.e. alarm callback not supposed to end up calling ibv_get_async_event()) might better explain the logic behind these changes. What I mean is, if there was no problem, you wouldn't need to make priv_link_status_update() a separate function, right? > The big comment just explains the link inconsistent issue and was added > here since Nelio and I think the new function, priv_link_status_update(), > justifies this comment for future review. I understand, this could also have been part of the commit log of the dedicated commit. Thanks. -- Adrien Mazarguil 6WIND
