[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 1/2] net/af_xdp: remove resources when port is closed

[Thomas Monjalon]

30/04/2019 09:33, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 4/29/2019 11:34 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 30/04/2019 00:28, Ferruh Yigit:
> >> On 4/29/2019 9:14 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>> 29/04/2019 19:00, Ferruh Yigit:
> >>>> On 4/26/2019 6:09 AM, Xiaolong Ye wrote:
> >>>>> Since 18.11, it is suggested that driver should release all its private
> >>>>> resources at the dev_close routine. So all resources previously released
> >>>>> in remove routine are now released at the dev_close routine, and the
> >>>>> dev_close routine will be called in driver remove routine in order to
> >>>>> support removing a device without closing its ports.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Above behavior changes are supported by setting RTE_ETH_DEV_CLOSE_REMOVE
> >>>>> flag during probe stage.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Xiaolong Ye <xiaolong.ye at intel.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> <...>
> >>>>
> >>>>> @@ -936,14 +940,7 @@ rte_pmd_af_xdp_remove(struct rte_vdev_device *dev)
> >>>>>  	if (eth_dev == NULL)
> >>>>>  		return -1;
> >>>>>  
> >>>>> -	internals = eth_dev->data->dev_private;
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> -	rte_ring_free(internals->umem->buf_ring);
> >>>>> -	rte_memzone_free(internals->umem->mz);
> >>>>> -	rte_free(internals->umem);
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> -	rte_eth_dev_release_port(eth_dev);
> >>>>
> >>>> I thinks we should keep 'rte_eth_dev_release_port()' in '.remove()' path,
> >>>> the 'RTE_ETH_DEV_CLOSE_REMOVE' flag will take care of this in
> >>>> 'rte_eth_dev_close()' but still needed in  '.remove()' path.
> >>>
> >>> I don't understand your comment.
> >>> Calling the close function looks the right thing to do in "remove".
> >>
> >> No concern on calling the 'close'.
> >> My comment was to keep 'rte_eth_dev_release_port()' which this patch removes.
> > 
> > rte_eth_dev_release_port() is called in eth_dev_close(), isn't it?
> 
> No, 'eth_dev_close()' is local 'dev_close()' ops, the one to clear driver
> private resources.
> I assume it is confused with 'rte_eth_dev_close()' ...
> 
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> +	eth_dev_close(eth_dev);

Ah yes, I overlooked it.
Why not calling rte_eth_dev_close()?