On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 07:21:51PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 6/24/2019 5:27 PM, Gaëtan Rivet wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 08:23:38AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 10:15:58 +0200
> >> Gaëtan Rivet <gaetan.ri...@6wind.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello Stephen,
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 03:08:24PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >>>> When secondary process is run was noticing that the log always
> >>>> contained complaints about unable to parse devargs.
> >>>>
> >>>> It turns out that an empty devargs turns into "" and this
> >>>> value is not parsable. Change the failsafe secondary to just
> >>>> skip doing devargs if it empty.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Commit log needs a little rework, a few typos.
> >>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe.c | 4 ++++
> >>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe.c
> >>>> b/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe.c
> >>>> index e91c274d8059..04ca0cab0d78 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/failsafe/failsafe.c
> >>>> @@ -364,6 +364,10 @@ rte_pmd_failsafe_probe(struct rte_vdev_device *vdev)
> >>>> * A sub-device can be plugged later.
> >>>> */
> >>>> FOREACH_SUBDEV(sdev, i, eth_dev) {
> >>>> + /* skip empty devargs */
> >>>> + if (sdev->devargs.name[0] == '\0')
> >>>> + continue;
> >>>> +
> >>>
> >>> An empty devargs being named "" is part of the internals of rte_devargs.
> >>> The clean solution would be to add a `bool rte_devargs_empty()` function
> >>> and test the devargs with it.
> >>>
> >>> The simple solution is your proposition.
> >>>
> >>> Clean seems a little heavy-handed, but it would be more stable. If you
> >>> agree, you can add the helper. I'm ok with keeping it simple otherwise.
> >>>
> >>>> /* rebuild devargs to be able to get the bus
> >>>> name. */
> >>>> ret = rte_devargs_parse(&devargs,
> >>>> sdev->devargs.name);
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.20.1
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Simpler is better.
> >
> > Ok
>
> is this an ack :)
>
Yes sorry,
Acked-by: Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.ri...@6wind.com>
> >
> >> Sorry, after working with failsafe my impression is that it is not
> >> built with that in mind.
> >
>
--
Gaëtan Rivet
6WIND
