Hi Fan, > -----Original Message----- > From: Zhang, Roy Fan > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 11:09 AM > To: dev@dpdk.org > Cc: Zhang, Roy Fan <roy.fan.zh...@intel.com>; Rybalchenko, Kirill > <kirill.rybalche...@intel.com>; sta...@dpdk.org; De Lara Guarch, Pablo > <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com> > Subject: [PATCH] crypto/scheduler: fix possible duplicated ring names > > Fixes: 4c07e0552f0a ("crypto/scheduler: add multicore scheduling mode")
Fixes line goes before "Signed-off-by" and after the description of the patch. Also, CC: sta...@dpdk.org should go after Fixes line. > > This patch fixes the possible duplicated ring names in multi-core scheduler. > Originally two or more multi-core schedulers may have same worker ring names > thus will cause initialization error. > > Signed-off-by: Fan Zhang <roy.fan.zh...@intel.com> > --- > drivers/crypto/scheduler/scheduler_multicore.c | 8 ++++++-- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/crypto/scheduler/scheduler_multicore.c > b/drivers/crypto/scheduler/scheduler_multicore.c > index 644426e93..cd71d18ee 100644 > --- a/drivers/crypto/scheduler/scheduler_multicore.c > +++ b/drivers/crypto/scheduler/scheduler_multicore.c > @@ -347,14 +347,18 @@ scheduler_create_private_ctx(struct rte_cryptodev > *dev) > for (i = 0; i < sched_ctx->nb_wc; i++) { > char r_name[16]; > > - snprintf(r_name, sizeof(r_name), > MC_SCHED_ENQ_RING_NAME_PREFIX "%u", i); > + snprintf(r_name, sizeof(r_name), > + MC_SCHED_ENQ_RING_NAME_PREFIX "%u", > + sched_ctx->wc_pool[i]); We could potentially have 2 scheduler sharing same cores, right? I mean, performance wise, it doesn't make sense, but it should still work. In this case, it wouldn't work, so we might need a different name. I'd say using the scheduler id and the index "i" should work. Thanks, Pablo