[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] failsafe: skip devargs if not present in secondary

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 6/24/2019 5:27 PM, Gaëtan Rivet wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 08:23:38AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 10:15:58 +0200
>> Gaëtan Rivet <gaetan.rivet at 6wind.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Stephen,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 03:08:24PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>>> When secondary process is run was noticing that the log always
>>>> contained complaints about unable to parse devargs.
>>>>
>>>> It turns out that an empty devargs turns into "" and this
>>>> value is not parsable. Change the failsafe secondary to just
>>>> skip doing devargs if it empty.
>>>>   
>>>
>>> Commit log needs a little rework, a few typos.
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe.c | 4 ++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe.c b/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe.c
>>>> index e91c274d8059..04ca0cab0d78 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe.c
>>>> @@ -364,6 +364,10 @@ rte_pmd_failsafe_probe(struct rte_vdev_device *vdev)
>>>>  		 * A sub-device can be plugged later.
>>>>  		 */
>>>>  		FOREACH_SUBDEV(sdev, i, eth_dev) {
>>>> +			/* skip empty devargs */
>>>> +			if (sdev->devargs.name[0] == '\0')
>>>> +				continue;
>>>> +  
>>>
>>> An empty devargs being named "" is part of the internals of rte_devargs.
>>> The clean solution would be to add a `bool rte_devargs_empty()` function
>>> and test the devargs with it.
>>>
>>> The simple solution is your proposition.
>>>
>>> Clean seems a little heavy-handed, but it would be more stable. If you
>>> agree, you can add the helper. I'm ok with keeping it simple otherwise.
>>>
>>>>  			/* rebuild devargs to be able to get the bus name. */
>>>>  			ret = rte_devargs_parse(&devargs,
>>>>  						sdev->devargs.name);
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.20.1
>>>>   
>>>
>>
>> Simpler is better.
> 
> Ok

is this an ack :)

> 
>> Sorry, after working with failsafe my impression is that it is not
>> built with that in mind.
>