Hi I vote for 2.3.
Ori > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Matan Azrad > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 3:16 PM > To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon > <tho...@monjalon.net>; Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.ri...@6wind.com>; Jingjing > Wu <jingjing...@intel.com> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>; Bruce > Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; Konstantin Ananyev > <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; sta...@dpdk.org; Olga Shern > <ol...@mellanox.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v3 1/7] ethdev: fix port data > reset timing > > Hi all > > From: Ferruh Yigit, Thursday, April 19, 2018 2:08 PM > > > But rte_eth_dev_release_port() is still broken because of this > > >change, please check _rte_eth_dev_callback_process() which uses > > >dev->data- port_id. > > The issue is that a DESTROY callback gets port_id=0 all the time, regardless > the destroyed port id. > > Let's discuss about the fix: > > There are 2 options for the DESTROY event meaning: > > 1. The device is going to be destroyed in the future (a bit after the > callbacks > calling). > The user may think that there is a valid data in the device structure in > the callback time, > Thus, he may use it. > The fix here is to move the callback to the start of the function, > In this time the data field is still valid. > > 2. The device was already destroyed in the past (a bit before the callbacks > calling). > The user should think that there is no any valid data in the device > structure in the callback time, > Thus, he doesn't use it. > The issue here: > _rte_eth_dev_callback_process() assumes there is a valid data in the > data field all the time, > But in this case the data field is not valid because the device was > already destroyed. > Optional fixes: > 1. Always keep the data->port_id valid. > 2. keep the data->port_id valid only for the > _rte_eth_dev_callback_process() call. > 3. Change _rte_eth_dev_callback_process() arg from "struct > rte_eth_dev *dev" to "uint16_t port_id" > a. Need to change all the calls for this internal API. > > I vote to 2.1. > > > What do you think? > > Matan. > > >
