[dpdk-dev] [Suspected-Phishing]Re: [PATCH v2] net/bonding: support bifurcated driver in eal cli using --vdev

[Raslan Darawsheh]

Hi Guys,
This is gentle remainder of this patch,
Do we have any updates about it?

Kindest regards
Raslan Darawsheh

-----Original Message-----
From: gowrishankar muthukrishnan [mailto:gowrishankar.m at linux.vnet.ibm.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 11:59 AM
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Gaëtan Rivet <gaetan.rivet at 6wind.com>; Declan Doherty <declan.doherty at intel.com>; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>; Raslan Darawsheh <rasland at mellanox.com>
Subject: [Suspected-Phishing]Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/bonding: support bifurcated driver in eal cli using --vdev

Hi Thomas,
I will rework on my patch with these suggestions and send new version.
Thanks Declan and Gaëtan. Thank you Thomas too reminding me.

Regards,
Gowrishankar

On Tuesday 05 September 2017 02:43 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Ping - any news?
>
> 31/07/2017 16:34, Gaëtan Rivet:
>> Hi Gowrishankar, Declan,
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:02:24PM +0530, gowrishankar muthukrishnan wrote:
>>> On Friday 07 July 2017 09:08 PM, Declan Doherty wrote:
>>>> On 04/07/2017 12:57 PM, Gowrishankar wrote:
>>>>> From: Gowrishankar Muthukrishnan 
>>>>> <gowrishankar.m at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> At present, creating bonding devices using --vdev is broken for 
>>>>> PMD like
>>>>> mlx5 as it is neither UIO nor VFIO based and hence PMD driver is 
>>>>> unknown to find_port_id_by_pci_addr(), as below.
>>>>>
>>>>> testpmd <EAL args> --vdev 'net_bonding0,mode=1,slave=<PCI>,socket_id=0'
>>>>>
>>>>> PMD: bond_ethdev_parse_slave_port_kvarg(150) - Invalid slave port 
>>>>> value (<PCI ID>) specified
>>>>> EAL: Failed to parse slave ports for bonded device net_bonding0
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch fixes parsing PCI ID from bonding device params by 
>>>>> verifying it in RTE PCI bus, rather than checking dev->kdrv.
>>>>>
>>>>> Changes:
>>>>>   v2 - revisit fix by iterating rte_pci_bus
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Gowrishankar Muthukrishnan 
>>>>> <gowrishankar.m at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>> ...
>>>> Hey Gowrishankar,
>>>>
>>>> I was having a look at this patch and there is the following 
>>>> checkpatch error.
>>>>
>>>> _coding style issues_
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WARNING:AVOID_EXTERNS: externs should be avoided in .c files
>>>> #48: FILE: drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_args.c:43:
>>>> +extern struct rte_pci_bus rte_pci_bus;
>>>>
>>> Hi Declan,
>>> Thank you for your review.
>>> Yes, but I also saw some references like above in older code.
>>>
>>>> Looking at bit closer at the issue I think there is a simpler 
>>>> solution, the bonding driver really shouldn't be parsing the PCI 
>>>> bus directly, and since PCI devices use the PCI DBF as their name 
>>>> we can simply replace the all the scanning code with a simple call 
>>>> to rte_eth_dev_get_port_by_name API.
>>>>
>> I agree that it would be better to be able to use the ether API for 
>> this.
>>
>> The issue is that PCI devices are inconsistent regarding their names. 
>> The possibility is given to the user to employ the simplified BDF 
>> format for PCI device name, instead of the DomBDF format.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the default device name for a PCI device is in the 
>> DomBDF format. This means that the name won't match if the device was 
>> probed by using the PCI blacklist mode (the default PCI mode).
>>
>> The matching must be refined.
>>
>>> But you are removing an option to mention ports by PCI addresses 
>>> right  (as I see parse_port_id() completely removed in your patch) ?.
>>> IMO, we just need to check if given eth pci id (incase we mention 
>>> ports ib PCI ID) is one of what EAL scanned in PCI. Also, slaves 
>>> should not be from any blacklisted PCI ids (as we test with -b or -w).
>>>
>> Declan is right about the iteration of PCI devices. The device list 
>> for the PCI bus is private, the extern declaration to the rte_pci_bus 
>> is the telltale sign that there is something wrong in the approach here.
>>
>> In order to respect the new rte_bus logic, I think what you want to 
>> achieve can be done by using the rte_bus->find_device with the 
>> correct device comparison function.
>>
>> static int
>> pci_addr_cmp(const struct rte_device *dev, const void *_pci_addr) {
>>      struct rte_pci_device *pdev;
>>      char *addr = _pci_addr;
>>      struct rte_pci_addr paddr;
>>      static struct rte_bus *pci_bus = NULL;
>>
>>      if (pci_bus == NULL)
>>          pci_bus = rte_bus_find_by_name("pci");
>>
>>      if (pci_bus->parse(addr, &paddr) != 0) {
>>          /* Invalid PCI addr given as input. */
>>          return -1;
>>      }
>>      pdev = RTE_DEV_TO_PCI(dev);
>>      return rte_eal_compare_pci_addr(&pdev->addr, &paddr); }
>>
>> Then verify that you are able to get a device by using it as follows:
>>
>> {
>>      struct rte_bus *pci_bus;
>>      struct rte_device *dev;
>>
>>      pci_bus = rte_bus_find_by_name("pci");
>>      if (pci_bus == NULL) {
>>          RTE_LOG(ERR, PMD, "Unable to find PCI bus\n");
>>          return -1;
>>      }
>>      dev = pci_bus->find_device(NULL, pci_addr_cmp, devname);
>>      if (dev == NULL) {
>>          RTE_LOG(ERR, PMD, "Unable to find the device %s to enslave.\n",
>>                  devname);
>>          return -EINVAL;
>>      }
>> }
>>
>> I hope it's clear enough. You can find examples of use for this API 
>> in lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_dev.c
>>
>> It's a quick implementation to outline the possible direction, I 
>> haven't compiled it. It should be refined.
>>
>> For example, the PCI address validation should not be happening in 
>> the comparison function, the pci_bus could be matched once instead of 
>> twice, etc...
>>
>> But the logic should work.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>
>