[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v12 7/7] testpmd: use hot-unplug failure handle mechanism

[Jeff Guo]

hi, bernard

thanks for your review, comment as below.


On 10/2/2018 11:21 PM, Iremonger, Bernard wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> <snip>
>
>> Subject: [PATCH v12 7/7] testpmd: use hot-unplug failure handle mechanism
> ./devtools/check-git-log.sh -1
> Wrong headline label:
>          testpmd: use hot-unplug failure handle mechanism
>   


ok, let me check it.


>> This patch use testpmd for example, to show how an app smoothly handle
>> failure when device be hot-unplug. Except app should enabled the device event
>> monitor and register the hotplug event’s callback, it also need enable hotplug
>> handle mechanism before running. Once app detect the removal event, the hot-
>> unplug callback would be called. It will first stop the packet forwarding, then
>> stop the port, close the port, and finally detach the port to clean the device and
>> release the resources.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Guo <jia.guo at intel.com>
>> ---
>> v12->v11:
>> no change.
>> ---
>>   app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>   1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c index
>> 001f0e5..bfef483 100644
>> --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
>> @@ -2093,14 +2093,22 @@ pmd_test_exit(void)
>>
>>   	if (hot_plug) {
>>   		ret = rte_dev_event_monitor_stop();
>> -		if (ret)
>> +		if (ret) {
>>   			RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL,
>>   				"fail to stop device event monitor.");
>> +			return;
>> +		}
>>
>>   		ret = eth_dev_event_callback_unregister();
>>   		if (ret)
> Should there be an RTE_LOG() call here?


ok, in order to make it more clean, no need to add help here.


>> +			return;
>> +
>> +		ret = rte_dev_hotplug_handle_disable();
>> +		if (ret) {
>>   			RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL,
>> -				"fail to unregister all event callbacks.");
>> +				"fail to disable hotplug handling.");
>> +			return;
>> +		}
>>   	}
>>
>>   	printf("\nBye...\n");
>> @@ -2244,6 +2252,9 @@ static void
>>   eth_dev_event_callback(char *device_name, enum rte_dev_event_type type,
>>   			     __rte_unused void *arg)
>>   {
>> +	uint16_t port_id;
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>>   	if (type >= RTE_DEV_EVENT_MAX) {
>>   		fprintf(stderr, "%s called upon invalid event %d\n",
>>   			__func__, type);
>> @@ -2254,9 +2265,12 @@ eth_dev_event_callback(char *device_name, enum
>> rte_dev_event_type type,
>>   	case RTE_DEV_EVENT_REMOVE:
>>   		RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "The device: %s has been removed!\n",
>>   			device_name);
>> -		/* TODO: After finish failure handle, begin to stop
>> -		 * packet forward, stop port, close port, detach port.
>> -		 */
>> +		ret = rte_eth_dev_get_port_by_name(device_name, &port_id);
>> +		if (ret) {
>> +			printf("can not get port by device %s!\n",
>> device_name);
> It would be better to use an RTE_LOG() call here instead of printf().


ok.


>> +			return;
>> +		}
>> +		rmv_event_callback((void *)(intptr_t)port_id);
>>   		break;
>>   	case RTE_DEV_EVENT_ADD:
>>   		RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "The device: %s has been added!\n", @@ -
>> 2779,14 +2793,23 @@ main(int argc, char** argv)
>>   	init_config();
>>
>>   	if (hot_plug) {
>> -		/* enable hot plug monitoring */
>> +		ret = rte_dev_hotplug_handle_enable();
>> +		if (ret) {
>> +			RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL,
>> +				"fail to enable hotplug handling.");
>> +			return -1;
>> +		}
>> +
>>   		ret = rte_dev_event_monitor_start();
>>   		if (ret) {
>> -			rte_errno = EINVAL;
>> +			RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL,
>> +				"fail to start device event monitoring.");
>>   			return -1;
>>   		}
>> -		eth_dev_event_callback_register();
>>
>> +		ret = eth_dev_event_callback_register();
>> +		if (ret)
> Should there be an RTE_LOG() call here?


please see above answer.


>> +			return -1;
>>   	}
>>
>>   	if (start_port(RTE_PORT_ALL) != 0)
>> --
>> 2.7.4
> Regards,
>
> Bernard.