Hello Aaron,

On Tuesday 10 October 2017 09:30 PM, Aaron Conole wrote:
Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.j...@nxp.com> writes:

Hello Don,


[snip]


These practical problems confirm to me that the failure of a bus
scan is more of a strategic issue: when asking "which devices can
I use?", "none" is a perfectly valid answer that does not seem
like an error to me even when a failed bus scan is the reason for
that answer.

I agree with this.


  From the application's point of view, the potential error here
is that the device it wants to use isn't available. I don't see that
either the init function or the probe function will have enough
information to understand that application-level problem, so
they should leave it to the application to detect it.

I think I understand you comment but just want to cross check again:
Scan or probe error should simply be ignored by EAL layer and let the
application take stance when it detects that the device it was looking
for is missing. Is my understanding correct?

I am trying to come a conclusion so that this patch can either be
modified or pushed as it is. If the above understanding is correct, I
don't see any changes required in the patch.

Does it make sense to introduce a way to query the results of the
various bus types for their status?  That way we can give the relevant
information to the application if it wants, and make the bus scanning
code *always* succeed?  This version shouldn't be an ABI breakage,
either (confirm?).

half-baked below (not tested or suitable - just an example):

---
diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_bus.c 
b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_bus.c
index a30a898..cd1ef1e 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_bus.c
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_bus.c
@@ -38,9 +38,23 @@
#include "eal_private.h" +struct rte_bus_failure {
+       struct rte_bus *bus;
+       int err;
+};
+
  struct rte_bus_list rte_bus_list =
        TAILQ_HEAD_INITIALIZER(rte_bus_list);
+TAILQ_HEAD(rte_bus_scan_failure_list, rte_bus_failure);
+struct rte_bus_scan_failure_list rte_bus_scan_failure_list =
+       TAILQ_HEAD_INITIALIZER(rte_bus_failure);
+
+TAILQ_HEAD(rte_bus_probe_failure_list, rte_bus_failure);
+struct rte_bus_probe_failure_list rte_bus_probe_failure_list =
+       TAILQ_HEAD_INITIALIZER(rte_bus_failure);
+
+
  void
  rte_bus_register(struct rte_bus *bus)
  {
@@ -64,6 +78,26 @@ rte_bus_unregister(struct rte_bus *bus)
        RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, "Unregistered [%s] bus.\n", bus->name);
  }
+static void
+rte_bus_append_failed_scan(struct rte_bus *bus, int ret)
+{
+       struct rte_bus_failure *f = malloc(sizeof(struct rte_bus_failure));
+       if (!f) abort();
+       f->bus = bus;
+       f->ret = ret;
+       TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(&rte_bus_scan_failure_list, f, next);
+}
+
+static void
+rte_bus_append_failed_scan(struct rte_bus *bus, int ret)
+{
+       struct rte_bus_failure *f = malloc(sizeof(struct rte_bus_failure));
+       if (!f) abort();
+       f->bus = bus;
+       f->ret = ret;
+       TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(&rte_bus_probe_failure_list, f, next);
+}
+
  /* Scan all the buses for registered devices */
  int
  rte_bus_scan(void)
@@ -76,13 +110,33 @@ rte_bus_scan(void)
                if (ret) {
                        RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Scan for (%s) bus failed.\n",
                                bus->name);
-                       return ret;
+                       rte_bus_append_failed_scan(bus, ret);
                }
        }
return 0;
  }
+/* Seek through scan failures */
+void
+rte_bus_scan_errors(rte_bus_error_callback cb)
+{
+       struct rte_bus_failure *f = NULL;
+       TAILQ_FOREACH(f, &rte_bus_scan_failure_list, next) {
+               cb(f->bus, f->ret);
+       }
+}
+
+/* Seek through probe failures */
+void
+rte_bus_probe_errors(rte_bus_error_callback cb)
+{
+       struct rte_bus_failure *f = NULL;
+       TAILQ_FOREACH(f, &rte_bus_probe_failure_list, next) {
+               cb(f->bus, f->ret);
+       }
+}
+
  /* Probe all devices of all buses */
  int
  rte_bus_probe(void)
@@ -100,7 +154,7 @@ rte_bus_probe(void)
                if (ret) {
                        RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Bus (%s) probe failed.\n",
                                bus->name);
-                       return ret;
+            rte_bus_append_failed_probe(bus, ret);
                }
        }
@@ -109,7 +163,7 @@ rte_bus_probe(void)
                if (ret) {
                        RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Bus (%s) probe failed.\n",
                                vbus->name);
-                       return ret;
+            rte_bus_append_failed_probe(bus, ret);
                }
        }
diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h
index 6fb0834..daddb28 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h
@@ -231,6 +231,20 @@ void rte_bus_register(struct rte_bus *bus);
   */
  void rte_bus_unregister(struct rte_bus *bus);
+typedef void (*rte_bus_error_callback)(struct rte_bus *bus, int err);
+
+/**
+ * Search through all buses, invoking cb for each bus which reports scan
+ * error.
+ */
+void rte_bus_scan_errors(rte_bus_error_callback cb);
+
+/**
+ * Search through all buses, invoking cb for each bus which reports scan
+ * error.
+ */
+void rte_bus_probe_errors(rte_bus_error_callback cb);
+
  /**
   * Scan all the buses.
   *


I am assuming that that aim of this is to have a way so that application can query whether its device of interest is there or not. But, I think this (creating a list of scan errrors) would be overkill.

Even if we were to create a list of errors from scan/probe, how would that help an application? Is there some specific use-case that you are hinting at?

Application should worry about devices rather than how they are being detected (scan/probe etc). Application can use API like rte_eth_dev_get_port_by_name to query its specific device of interest. If the scan has failed, this API would be sufficient for the application to take counter-measures. Isn't that enough from a DPDK application perspective to move from init to I/O?

I am not discounting that there might be some higher use-cases where this list might come of us - but I can't think of one right now and I can't comment on this proposal in absence of that understanding - sorry.

Reply via email to