[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: Fix port validation code of "port stop all" command

[Qiu, Michael]

On 3/9/2015 1:21 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
> On 2015/03/09 12:49, Qiu, Michael wrote:
>> On 3/9/2015 10:22 AM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
>>> On 2015/03/06 22:53, De Lara Guarch, Pablo wrote:
>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Qiu, Michael
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 1:33 PM
>>>>> To: Tetsuya Mukawa; dev at dpdk.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: Fix port validation code of "port
>>>>> stop all" command
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi, Tetsuya and Pablo
>>>>> This is not a full fix, I have generate the full fix patch two days ago,
>>> Hi Michel,
>>>
>>> I am sorry for late replying, and thanks for your work.
>>>
>>>> Sorry I did not see this earlier. Did you upstream this patch already?
>>>> I acked Tetsuya's patch, as it was simple and works, but I cannot find
>>>> this one.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Pablo
>>>>
>>>>> See below:
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c
>>>>> index 49be819..ec53923 100644
>>>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/config.c
>>>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c
>>>>> @@ -384,6 +384,9 @@ port_infos_display(portid_t port_id)
>>>>>  int
>>>>>  port_id_is_invalid(portid_t port_id, enum print_warning warning)
>>>>>  {
>>>>> +       if (port_id == (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
>>>>> +               return 0;
>>>>> +
>>> I am not clearly sure that we need to add above 'if statement'.
>> Because some times RTE_PORT_ALL will pass to port start/stop/close, but
>> the check will be invalid.
>>
>> Actually, we should see it as valid, then all port valid check will work
>> for start/stop/close action
>>
>>>>>         if (ports[port_id].enabled)
>>>>>                 return 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>>>> index e556b4c..1c4c651 100644
>>>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>>>> @@ -1326,6 +1326,9 @@ start_port(portid_t pid)
>>>>>                 return -1;
>>>>>         }
>>>>>
>>>>> +       if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
>>>>> +               return 0;
>>>>> +
>>> Same as above.
>>>
>>>>>         if (init_fwd_streams() < 0) {
>>>>>                 printf("Fail from init_fwd_streams()\n");
>>>>>                 return -1;
>>>>> @@ -1482,10 +1485,14 @@ stop_port(portid_t pid)
>>>>>                 dcb_test = 0;
>>>>>                 dcb_config = 0;
>>>>>         }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
>>>>> +               return;
>>>>> +
>>> Same as above.
>>>
>>>>>         printf("Stopping ports...\n");
>>>>>
>>>>>         FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
>>>>> -               if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
>>>>> +               if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
>>>>>                         continue;
>>>>>
>>>>>                 port = &ports[pi];
>>>>> @@ -1517,10 +1524,13 @@ close_port(portid_t pid)
>>>>>                 return;
>>>>>         }
>>>>>
>>>>> +       if (port_id_is_invalid(pid, ENABLED_WARN))
>>>>> +                return;
>>>>> +
>>> Same as above.
>>>
>>>>>         printf("Closing ports...\n");
>>>>>
>>>>>         FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
>>>>> -               if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
>>>>> +               if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
>>>>>                         continue;
>>>>>
>>>>>                 port = &ports[pi];
>>>>> --
>>>>> 1.9.3
>>> FOREACH_PORT() returns valid ports, so is it not enough to check like above?
>>> I am not clearly understand which case we need to add above extra if
>>> statements.
>>> Could you please describe?
>> Yes,  just consider this situation, the valid port number are [0, 1],
>> but you try to to stop prot number 2, what will happen?
>>
>> Noting will be show, at least we need an error log.
>>
>> So it must be check.
> Hi Michael,
>
> Thanks, I've understood it.
> Have you already submitted it as patch?
> I could not find it in patchwork.
> I will send an ack to your patch.

I have not send yet,

I will send out now and add will add you in cc list.

Thanks,
Michael
> Thanks,
> Tetsuya
>
>> Thanks,
>> Michael
>>> But I agree we cannot use my previous patch.
>>> We need to fix not only stop_port() but also close_port() like start_port().
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tetsuya
>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/5/2015 3:31 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
>>>>>> When "port stop all" is executed, the command doesn't work as it should
>>>>>> because of wrong port validation. The patch fixes this issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reported-by: Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa at igel.co.jp>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>>>>> index 61291be..bb65342 100644
>>>>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>>>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>>>>>> @@ -1484,7 +1484,7 @@ stop_port(portid_t pid)
>>>>>>  	printf("Stopping ports...\n");
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  	FOREACH_PORT(pi, ports) {
>>>>>> -		if (!port_id_is_invalid(pid, DISABLED_WARN) && pid != pi)
>>>>>> +		if (pid != pi && pid != (portid_t)RTE_PORT_ALL)
>>>>>>  			continue;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  		port = &ports[pi];
>
>