Hi Guys, This is gentle remainder of this patch, Do we have any updates about it?
Kindest regards Raslan Darawsheh -----Original Message----- From: gowrishankar muthukrishnan [mailto:gowrishanka...@linux.vnet.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 11:59 AM To: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Gaëtan Rivet <gaetan.ri...@6wind.com>; Declan Doherty <declan.dohe...@intel.com>; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Raslan Darawsheh <rasl...@mellanox.com> Subject: [Suspected-Phishing]Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/bonding: support bifurcated driver in eal cli using --vdev Hi Thomas, I will rework on my patch with these suggestions and send new version. Thanks Declan and Gaëtan. Thank you Thomas too reminding me. Regards, Gowrishankar On Tuesday 05 September 2017 02:43 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > Ping - any news? > > 31/07/2017 16:34, Gaëtan Rivet: >> Hi Gowrishankar, Declan, >> >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:02:24PM +0530, gowrishankar muthukrishnan wrote: >>> On Friday 07 July 2017 09:08 PM, Declan Doherty wrote: >>>> On 04/07/2017 12:57 PM, Gowrishankar wrote: >>>>> From: Gowrishankar Muthukrishnan >>>>> <gowrishanka...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>>>> >>>>> At present, creating bonding devices using --vdev is broken for >>>>> PMD like >>>>> mlx5 as it is neither UIO nor VFIO based and hence PMD driver is >>>>> unknown to find_port_id_by_pci_addr(), as below. >>>>> >>>>> testpmd <EAL args> --vdev 'net_bonding0,mode=1,slave=<PCI>,socket_id=0' >>>>> >>>>> PMD: bond_ethdev_parse_slave_port_kvarg(150) - Invalid slave port >>>>> value (<PCI ID>) specified >>>>> EAL: Failed to parse slave ports for bonded device net_bonding0 >>>>> >>>>> This patch fixes parsing PCI ID from bonding device params by >>>>> verifying it in RTE PCI bus, rather than checking dev->kdrv. >>>>> >>>>> Changes: >>>>> v2 - revisit fix by iterating rte_pci_bus >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Gowrishankar Muthukrishnan >>>>> <gowrishanka...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>>>> --- >>>> ... >>>> Hey Gowrishankar, >>>> >>>> I was having a look at this patch and there is the following >>>> checkpatch error. >>>> >>>> _coding style issues_ >>>> >>>> >>>> WARNING:AVOID_EXTERNS: externs should be avoided in .c files >>>> #48: FILE: drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_args.c:43: >>>> +extern struct rte_pci_bus rte_pci_bus; >>>> >>> Hi Declan, >>> Thank you for your review. >>> Yes, but I also saw some references like above in older code. >>> >>>> Looking at bit closer at the issue I think there is a simpler >>>> solution, the bonding driver really shouldn't be parsing the PCI >>>> bus directly, and since PCI devices use the PCI DBF as their name >>>> we can simply replace the all the scanning code with a simple call >>>> to rte_eth_dev_get_port_by_name API. >>>> >> I agree that it would be better to be able to use the ether API for >> this. >> >> The issue is that PCI devices are inconsistent regarding their names. >> The possibility is given to the user to employ the simplified BDF >> format for PCI device name, instead of the DomBDF format. >> >> Unfortunately, the default device name for a PCI device is in the >> DomBDF format. This means that the name won't match if the device was >> probed by using the PCI blacklist mode (the default PCI mode). >> >> The matching must be refined. >> >>> But you are removing an option to mention ports by PCI addresses >>> right (as I see parse_port_id() completely removed in your patch) ?. >>> IMO, we just need to check if given eth pci id (incase we mention >>> ports ib PCI ID) is one of what EAL scanned in PCI. Also, slaves >>> should not be from any blacklisted PCI ids (as we test with -b or -w). >>> >> Declan is right about the iteration of PCI devices. The device list >> for the PCI bus is private, the extern declaration to the rte_pci_bus >> is the telltale sign that there is something wrong in the approach here. >> >> In order to respect the new rte_bus logic, I think what you want to >> achieve can be done by using the rte_bus->find_device with the >> correct device comparison function. >> >> static int >> pci_addr_cmp(const struct rte_device *dev, const void *_pci_addr) { >> struct rte_pci_device *pdev; >> char *addr = _pci_addr; >> struct rte_pci_addr paddr; >> static struct rte_bus *pci_bus = NULL; >> >> if (pci_bus == NULL) >> pci_bus = rte_bus_find_by_name("pci"); >> >> if (pci_bus->parse(addr, &paddr) != 0) { >> /* Invalid PCI addr given as input. */ >> return -1; >> } >> pdev = RTE_DEV_TO_PCI(dev); >> return rte_eal_compare_pci_addr(&pdev->addr, &paddr); } >> >> Then verify that you are able to get a device by using it as follows: >> >> { >> struct rte_bus *pci_bus; >> struct rte_device *dev; >> >> pci_bus = rte_bus_find_by_name("pci"); >> if (pci_bus == NULL) { >> RTE_LOG(ERR, PMD, "Unable to find PCI bus\n"); >> return -1; >> } >> dev = pci_bus->find_device(NULL, pci_addr_cmp, devname); >> if (dev == NULL) { >> RTE_LOG(ERR, PMD, "Unable to find the device %s to enslave.\n", >> devname); >> return -EINVAL; >> } >> } >> >> I hope it's clear enough. You can find examples of use for this API >> in lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_dev.c >> >> It's a quick implementation to outline the possible direction, I >> haven't compiled it. It should be refined. >> >> For example, the PCI address validation should not be happening in >> the comparison function, the pci_bus could be matched once instead of >> twice, etc... >> >> But the logic should work. >> >> Best regards, >> > >
