[PATCH v4 8/8] interrupts: warn on leaked event FDs

[Burakov, Anatoly]

On 10/24/2026 10:56 AM, David Marchand wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 at 16:48, Burakov, Anatoly
> <anatoly.burakov at intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/23/2026 4:41 PM, David Marchand wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 at 15:52, Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov at intel.com> wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/lib/eal/linux/eal_interrupts.c b/lib/eal/linux/eal_interrupts.c
>>>> index aadb7b84a22..f6f51ba53c0 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/eal/linux/eal_interrupts.c
>>>> +++ b/lib/eal/linux/eal_interrupts.c
>>>> @@ -1667,6 +1667,8 @@ rte_intr_efd_disable(struct rte_intr_handle *intr_handle)
>>>>                   for (i = 0; i < (uint32_t)rte_intr_nb_efd_get(intr_handle); i++)
>>>>                           close(rte_intr_efds_index_get(intr_handle, i));
>>>>           }
>>>> +       for (i = 0; i < (uint32_t)rte_intr_nb_efd_get(intr_handle); i++)
>>>> +               rte_intr_efds_index_set(intr_handle, i, -1);
>>>
>>> We don't want to waive for types != VFIO_MSIX, do we?
>>>
>>
>> Looking into this further, I suspectwe want to check for != VDEV
>> instead. All handle types except VDEV will write into the handle.
> 
> Indeed, I had misunderstood rte_intr_efd_enable...
> Ok, I'll respin those patches as part of my series and let the whole
> set of changes go through CI.
> 
> 

Yes, the efd name is confusing because not all handles created by our 
interrupt subsystem are efd

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly