Hi Matan, > -----Original Message----- > From: Matan Azrad [mailto:ma...@mellanox.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 4:51 PM > To: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon > <tho...@monjalon.net>; Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.ri...@6wind.com>; Wu, > Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>; Richardson, > Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 6/6] app/testpmd: adjust ethdev port > ownership > > Hi Lu > > From: Lu, Wenzhuo, Wednesday, January 17, 2018 2:47 AM > > Hi Matan, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Matan Azrad [mailto:ma...@mellanox.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 4:16 PM > > > To: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon > > > <tho...@monjalon.net>; Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.ri...@6wind.com>; Wu, > > > Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com> > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>; Richardson, > > > Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin > > > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 6/6] app/testpmd: adjust ethdev > > > port ownership > > > > > > Hi Lu > > > From: Lu, Wenzhuo, Tuesday, January 16, 2018 7:54 AM > > > > Hi Matan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Matan Azrad > > > > > Sent: Sunday, January 7, 2018 5:46 PM > > > > > To: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; Gaetan Rivet > > > > > <gaetan.ri...@6wind.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com> > > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>; > > Richardson, > > > > > Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin > > > > > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > > > > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 6/6] app/testpmd: adjust ethdev > > > > > port ownership > > > > > > > > > > Testpmd should not use ethdev ports which are managed by other > > > > > DPDK entities. > > > > > > > > > > Set Testpmd ownership to each port which is not used by other > > > > > entity and prevent any usage of ethdev ports which are not owned > > > > > by > > Testpmd. > > > > Sorry I don't follow all the discussion as there's too much. So it > > > > may be a silly question. > > > > > > No problem, I'm here for any question :) > > > > > > > Testpmd already has the parameter " --pci-whitelist" to only use > > > > the assigned devices. > > > > > > It is an EAL parameter. No? just say to EAL which devices to create.. > > > > > > > When using this parameter, all the devices are owned by the > > > > current APP. > > > > > > No, what's about vdev? vdevs may manage devices(even whitlist PCI > > > devices) by themselves and want to prevent any app to use these > > > devices(see fail- safe PMD). > > I'm not an expert of EAL and vdev. Suppose this would be discussed in > > other patches. > > I don't want to bother you again here as testpmd is only used to show > > the result. > > So I think if this patch is needed just depends on if other patches > > are accepted :) > > > Sure! > > > > > > > > So I don't know why need to set/check the ownership. > > > > BTW, in this patch, seem all the change is for ownership checking. > > > > I don't find the setting code. Do I miss something? > > > > > > Yes, see in main function (the first FOREACH). > > I think you mean this change, > > > > @@ -2394,7 +2406,12 @@ uint8_t port_is_bonding_slave(portid_t > > slave_pid) > > rte_pdump_init(NULL); > > #endif > > > > - nb_ports = (portid_t) rte_eth_dev_count(); > > + if (rte_eth_dev_owner_new(&my_owner.id)) > > + rte_panic("Failed to get unique owner identifier\n"); > > + snprintf(my_owner.name, sizeof(my_owner.name), > > TESTPMD_OWNER_NAME); > > + RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV_OWNED_BY(port_id, > > RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER) > > + if (rte_eth_dev_owner_set(port_id, &my_owner) == 0) > > + nb_ports++; > > if (nb_ports == 0) > > RTE_LOG(WARNING, EAL, "No probed ethernet devices\n"); > > Yes. > > > But I thought about some code to assign a specific device to a > > specific APP explicitly. > > This code looks like just occupying the devices with no owner. So, it > > means the first APP will occupy all the devices? It makes me confused > > as I don't see the benefit or the difference than before. > > Remember that in EAL init some drivers may create ports and take > ownership of them, so this code owns all the ownerless ports. > So, ports which are already owned by another DPDK entity will not success to > take ownership here. > Since Testpmd wanted to manage all the ports before this feature( by > mistake ), I guess this is the right behavior now, just use the ports which > are > not used. Thanks for the explanation. Sounds good to me :)
> > > > > > > > > Thanks, Matan.
