[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] bus/dpaa: fix memory allocation during bus scan

santosh santosh.shukla at caviumnetworks.com
Tue Oct 10 18:55:17 CEST 2017

On Tuesday 10 October 2017 09:47 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 10/10/2017 16:05, santosh:
>> Hi Thomas,
>> On Tuesday 10 October 2017 01:09 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 10/10/2017 09:01, Shreyansh Jain:
>>>> Fixes: 5b22cf744689 ("bus/dpaa: introducing FMan configurations")
>>>> Fixes: 37f9b54bd3cf ("net/dpaa: support Tx and Rx queue setup")
>>> These lines should appear after the explanation.
>>>> Cc: shreyansh.jain at nxp.com
>>>> With the IOVA auto detection changes, bus scan is performed before
>>>> memory initialization. DPAA bus scan must not use rte_malloc in
>>>> its path.
>>> If the scan has been broken by IOVA detection, you should reference
>>> IOVA in Fixes line, not DPAA.
>> hmm.. IOVA not breaking scanning!, Refer this [1].
> It is breaking. A break is a behaviour or interface change.
> When moving init order, you break behaviour.
> I don't say it is bad.
> I say only it is the primary cause of this change.

disagree!. Why so: Legacy PCI/bus scan implementation don't
use rte_ lib as they don;t need to.. Refer [1] for detailing.
However, dpaa is and that we agree to align with legacy.
So its a open question : Who fixes who?

> The Fixes: line is also a help when backporting patches.
> This patch needs to be backported only if IOVA patch is also backported.

IMO, would prefer backport: rather fixes: tag in above case, more verbose I guess.

>> We(me/hemant) has discussed about same on thread[1] and agreed to
>> do respective changes and remove rte_ memory dependency from code base
>> at scan time..
>> Thanks.
>> [1] http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/26764/
> You already discussed about this issue, fine.
> Santosh, as you insist to talk again about it, one more comment:
> It is very good to have discussions on the mailing list.

Thanks, That makes me think that I didn't break, indeed did what was needed in agnostic way.

> It would be perfect if all these informations were explicitly given
> in the commit messages.
> For instance, saying that the scan cannot use rte_malloc anymore is
> a valuable tip for other developpers.

Agree, but scan wasn;t using for PCI/bus case.. so one can;t be sure whether to
mention or not..

More information about the dev mailing list