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

Gaëtan Rivet gaetan.rivet at 6wind.com
Mon Jun 24 18:27:41 CEST 2019


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

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

-- 
Gaëtan Rivet
6WIND


More information about the dev mailing list