Thanks for reporting this problem I think that if a user wants to remove a port, we should just remove the port.
Do you have any thought on this Kevin? Do you know why this check was introduced in the first place? Thanks On 24/02/2016 07:33, "discuss on behalf of Jan Wickbom" <discuss-boun...@openvswitch.org on behalf of jan.wick...@ericsson.com> wrote: >Hi, >If a vhost-user port is deleted (vsctl del-port) while the vhost device >is still attached to a VM, the port is ending up in some "semi-deleted" >state. Even though we indicate a reject of the command in >netdev_dpdk_vhost_destruct() by an ERROR log, we still run >netdev_close()/netdev_unref() meaning the name is removed from >netdev_shash and the memory is also freed (!), given back to dpdk. >However, the device is NOT linked out from dpdk_list, meaning it will be >handled in the dpdk_watchdog thread. Since the name is removed from >netdev_shash, it is treated as not existing from an operators view. >Whenever this newly freed memory is allocated again, a lot of strange >things may happen to the "ghost device" present in the dpdk_list. > >I think the check for an attached vhost device should be done a lot >earlier, maybe >ofproto_port_delete() is a good place? > >I have only checked the vhost-user port type, may the same problem exists >for other types as well? > >Anyone else seen the problem? > >BR >/jaw >_______________________________________________ >discuss mailing list >discuss@openvswitch.org >http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
