From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] app/testpmd: allow detaching a port not closed Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 10:20:48 +0200 Message-ID: <2356863.vgucDQR85H@xps> References: <20180907233929.21950-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <20181017015450.15783-2-thomas@monjalon.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: ferruh.yigit@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org, ophirmu@mellanox.com To: Andrew Rybchenko Return-path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86EAE7D05 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 10:20:47 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 17/10/2018 08:26, Andrew Rybchenko: > On 10/17/18 4:54 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > The testpmd application aim is for testing; > > so order of operations should not be enforced. > > > > There was a test to forbid detaching before closing a port. > > However, it may interesting to test what happens in such case. > > It is possible for a PMD to automatically close the port when detaching. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon > > I'm afraid it could be a problem which the patch, since port > close ensures that the port is not used for traffic forwarding. > Right now the check is gone and we can detach port which > is used for traffic forwarding on separate data cores. > So, almost guaranteed crash. Yes I can duplicate this check in detach_port().