From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] app/testpmd: allow detaching a port
	not closed
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:33:48 +0200
Message-ID: <3413444.RgHUR81Cio@xps>
References: <20180907233929.21950-1-thomas@monjalon.net>
 <2356863.vgucDQR85H@xps>
 <8CEF83825BEC744B83065625E567D7C260D1268E@IRSMSX107.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>, "Yigit,
 Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 "ophirmu@mellanox.com" <ophirmu@mellanox.com>
To: "Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 978A25B32
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:33:46 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <8CEF83825BEC744B83065625E567D7C260D1268E@IRSMSX107.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

17/10/2018 12:30, Iremonger, Bernard:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> From: Thomas Monjalon
> > 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 <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > >
> > > 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().
> 
> I agree with Andrew that this will cause a crash.

As I answered, I will add a check that port is stopped.

> I don't understand why the sequence is changing here.
> The close(), detach()  sequence has been in place since the port hot plug work some years ago, user applications may already be using this sequence.

I explained the reason in the commit log:
Adding too much checks is wrong for a test application.
We must be free to call detach without close.