Hi Adrien > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 12:28 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, > > 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 separation was done mainly because of the new interrupt implementation, else, there was bug here. The unnecessary alarm ibv_get_async_event calling was harmless in the previous code. I gets your point for the logic explanation behind these changes and I can add it in this patch commit log to be clearer, something like: The link update operation was separated from the interrupt callback to avoid RMV interrupt disregard and unnecessary event acknowledgment caused by the inconsistent link status alarm callback. > > 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. > Are you sure we need to describe the code comment reason in the commit log? > Thanks. > > -- > Adrien Mazarguil > 6WIND
