Hi Matan, > > Hi Konstantin > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin, Friday, January 19, 2018 2:40 PM > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Matan Azrad [mailto:ma...@mellanox.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 4:35 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>; sta...@dpdk.org > > > Subject: [PATCH v3 2/7] ethdev: fix used portid allocation > > > > > > rte_eth_dev_find_free_port() found a free port by state checking. > > > The state field are in local process memory, so other DPDK processes > > > may get the same port ID because their local states may be different. > > > > > > Replace the state checking by the ethdev port name checking, so, if > > > the name is an empty string the port ID will be detected as unused. > > > > > > Fixes: d948f596fee2 ("ethdev: fix port data mismatched in multiple > > > process model") > > > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org > > > > > > Suggested-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com> > > > --- > > > lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > > > b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c index 156231c..5d87f72 100644 > > > --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > > > +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c > > > @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ struct rte_eth_dev * > > > unsigned i; > > > > > > for (i = 0; i < RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS; i++) { > > > - if (rte_eth_devices[i].state == RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED) > > > + if (rte_eth_dev_share_data->data[i].name[0] == '\0') > > > > I know it is not really necessary, but I'd keep both (just in case): > > if (rte_eth_devices[i].state == RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED) && > > rte_eth_dev_share_data->data[i].name[0] == '\0') > > > Since, as you, I don't think it is necessary, searched again and didn't find > reason to that, > What's about > RTE_ASSERT(rte_eth_devices[i].state == RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED); > Instead?
Sounds ok to me. Konstantin > > > Aprart from that: Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev > > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com> > > > > > return i; > > > } > > > return RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS; > > > -- > > > 1.8.3.1
