From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Rybchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/6] app/testpmd: allow detaching a port not closed Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 10:45:11 +0300 Message-ID: <3763fc32-1db1-1220-079f-fbb6e9fff041@solarflare.com> References: <20180907233929.21950-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <20181018012402.1240-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <20181018012402.1240-3-thomas@monjalon.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , , , To: Thomas Monjalon , Return-path: Received: from dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com [148.163.129.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D53485689 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 09:45:59 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20181018012402.1240-3-thomas@monjalon.net> Content-Language: en-GB List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 10/18/18 4:23 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. Yes. In the case of net/sfc it requires a patch to call sfc_dev_close() from uninit. I think network PMD maintainers should be notified to double-check drivers. > in order to avoid a crash, it is checked that the port must be stopped > before detaching (as for closing). I thought that it is sufficient to stop traffic and the port may be stopped automatically by PMD. Not sure about it, just would like to clarify my previous notes. > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon [...]