[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] lpm: allocation of an existing object should fail
Olivier Matz
olivier.matz at 6wind.com
Fri Apr 1 18:25:29 CEST 2016
On 03/31/2016 09:35 AM, Olivier Matz wrote:
> On 03/30/2016 11:46 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>> with older memzone model, objects in huge memory area were never freed.
>> That means when application restarts it finds the old LPM and works.
>> With your change it would break such an application.
>>
>
> Could you be more precise about the use case you are
> describing? Are you talking about a secondary process?
>
> The API description of lpm and hash says since the first
> release that EEXIST should be returned if a memzone with
> the same name already exists:
>
> * @return
> * Handle to LPM object on success, NULL otherwise with rte_errno set
> * to an appropriate values. Possible rte_errno values include:
> * - E_RTE_NO_CONFIG - function could not get pointer to rte_config
> structure
> * - E_RTE_SECONDARY - function was called from a secondary process
> instance
> * - EINVAL - invalid parameter passed to function
> * - ENOSPC - the maximum number of memzones has already been allocated
> * - EEXIST - a memzone with the same name already exists
> * - ENOMEM - no appropriate memory area found in which to create memzone
> */
> struct rte_lpm *
> rte_lpm_create(const char *name, int socket_id,
> const struct rte_lpm_config *config);
>
> * @return
> * Pointer to hash table structure that is used in future hash table
> * operations, or NULL on error, with error code set in rte_errno.
> * Possible rte_errno errors include:
> * - E_RTE_NO_CONFIG - function could not get pointer to rte_config
> structure
> * - E_RTE_SECONDARY - function was called from a secondary process
> instance
> * - ENOENT - missing entry
> * - EINVAL - invalid parameter passed to function
> * - ENOSPC - the maximum number of memzones has already been allocated
> * - EEXIST - a memzone with the same name already exists
> * - ENOMEM - no appropriate memory area found in which to create memzone
> */
> struct rte_hash *
> rte_hash_create(const struct rte_hash_parameters *params);
>
>
> From my point of view, the behavior I'm fixing is more a bug
> fix than an API change. But if required, I can send a deprecation
> notice for 16.04 and have the fix integrated for 16.07.
>
Stephen, any comment on this please?
The problem is today some unit tests are not passing correctly.
Thanks
More information about the dev
mailing list