[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 06/22] ethdev: support attach or detach share device from secondary
Burakov, Anatoly
anatoly.burakov at intel.com
Thu Jun 21 11:06:20 CEST 2018
On 21-Jun-18 3:00 AM, Qi Zhang wrote:
> This patch cover the multi-process hotplug case when a share device
> attach/detach request be issued from secondary process, the implementation
> references malloc_mp.c.
>
> device attach on secondary:
> a) secondary send async request to primary and wait on a condition
> which will be released by matched response from primary.
> b) primary receive the request and attach the new device if failed
> goto i).
> c) primary forward attach request to all secondary as async request
> (because this in mp thread context, use sync request will deadlock)
> d) secondary receive request and attach device and send reply.
> e) primary check the reply if all success go to j).
> f) primary send attach rollback async request to all secondary.
> g) secondary receive the request and detach device and send reply.
> h) primary receive the reply and detach device as rollback action.
> i) send fail response to secondary, goto k).
> j) send success response to secondary.
> k) secondary process receive response and return.
>
> device detach on secondary:
> a) secondary send async request to primary and wait on a condition
> which will be released by matched response from primary.
> b) primary receive the request and perform pre-detach check, if device
> is locked, goto j).
> c) primary send pre-detach async request to all secondary.
> d) secondary perform pre-detach check and send reply.
> e) primary check the reply if any fail goto j).
> f) primary send detach async request to all secondary
> g) secondary detach the device and send reply
> h) primary detach the device.
> i) send success response to secondary, goto k).
> j) send fail response to secondary.
> k) secondary process receive response and return.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>
> ---
>
<snip>
> -static int handle_secondary_request(const struct rte_mp_msg *msg, const void *peer)
> +static int
> +check_reply(const struct eth_dev_mp_req *req, const struct rte_mp_reply *reply)
> +{
> + struct eth_dev_mp_req *resp;
> + int i;
> +
> + if (reply->nb_received != reply->nb_sent)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < reply->nb_received; i++) {
> + resp = (struct eth_dev_mp_req *)reply->msgs[i].param;
> +
> + if (resp->t != req->t) {
> + ethdev_log(ERR, "Unexpected response to async request\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + if (resp->id != req->id) {
> + ethdev_log(ERR, "response to wrong async request\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + if (resp->result)
> + return resp->result;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
As far as i understand, return values from this will propagate all the
way up to user return value. How would a user differentiate between
-EINVAL returned from invalid parameters, and -EINVAL from failed reply?
I think this error code should be different (don't know which one though
:) ).
(as a side note, you keep returning -EINVAL all over the place, even
when problem is not in user's arguments - you should probably fix those
too. for example, if request ID not found, return code should probably
be something like -ENOENT)
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
More information about the dev
mailing list