From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan?= Rivet <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] net/failsafe: fix removed device
	handling
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 23:21:31 +0100
Message-ID: <20171219222131.plcfn5wqggyn5znw@bidouze.vm.6wind.com>
References: <1513175370-16583-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com>
 <1513703415-29145-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com>
 <1513703415-29145-7-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>,
 Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, dev@dpdk.org
To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com (mail-wm0-f65.google.com [74.125.82.65])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0784324B
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 23:21:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f65.google.com with SMTP id t8so6482096wmc.3
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:21:44 -0800 (PST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1513703415-29145-7-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

Hi Matan,

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 05:10:15PM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote:
> There is time between the physical removal of the device until
> sub-device PMDs get a RMV interrupt. At this time DPDK PMDs and
> applications still don't know about the removal and may call sub-device
> control operation which should return an error.
> 
> In previous code this error is reported to the application contrary to
> fail-safe principle that the app should not be aware of device removal.
> 
> Add an removal check in each relevant control command error flow and
> prevent an error report to application when the sub-device is removed.
> 
> Fixes: a46f8d5 ("net/failsafe: add fail-safe PMD")
> Fixes: b737a1e ("net/failsafe: support flow API")
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
> ---

<snip>

> +/*
> + * Check if error should be reported to the user.
> + */
> +static inline bool
> +fs_is_error(struct sub_device *sdev, int err)
> +{
> +	/* A device removal shouldn't be reported as an error. */
> +	if (err == 0 || sdev->remove == 1 || err == -EIO)
> +		return false;
> +	return true;
> +}

This is better, thanks.

However is there a reason you did not follow the same pattern as ethdev with
eth_err? I see the two functions as similar in their intent, making them
close to each other would be clearer to a reader being familiar with the
ethdev API and that would be interested in fail-safe.

What do you think?

-- 
Gaëtan Rivet
6WIND