Hi Michael, > -----Original Message----- > From: Qiu, Michael > Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 4:05 PM > To: Lu, Wenzhuo; dev at dpdk.org > Cc: Zhou, Danny; Liu, Yong; Liang, Cunming > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ixgbe: Fix disable interrupt twice > > On 1/29/2016 4:07 PM, Lu, Wenzhuo wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Qiu, Michael > >> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 1:58 PM > >> To: dev at dpdk.org > >> Cc: Zhou, Danny; Liu, Yong; Liang, Cunming; Lu, Wenzhuo; Qiu, Michael > >> Subject: [PATCH v2] ixgbe: Fix disable interrupt twice > >> > >> Currently, ixgbe vf and pf will disable interrupt twice in stop stage > >> and uninit stage. It will cause an error: > >> > >> testpmd> quit > >> > >> Shutting down port 0... > >> Stopping ports... > >> Done > >> Closing ports... > >> EAL: Error disabling MSI-X interrupts for fd 26 > >> Done > >> > >> Becasue the interrupt already been disabled in stop stage. > >> Since it is enabled in init stage, better remove from stop stage. > > I'm afraid it's not a good idea to just remove the intr_disable from > > dev_stop. > > I think dev_stop have the chance to be used independently with dev_unint. In > this scenario, we still need intr_disable, right? > > Maybe what we need is some check before we disable the intr:) > > Yes, indeed we need some check in disable intr, but it need additional fields > in > "struct rte_intr_handle", and it's much saft to do so, but as I check > i40e/fm10k > code, only ixgbe disable it in dev_stop(). I found fm10k doesn't enable intr in dev_start. So, I think it's OK. But i40e enables intr in dev_start. To my opinion, it's more like i40e misses the intr_disable in dev_stop. Maybe we can follow fm10k's style.
> > On other hand, if we remove it in dev_stop, any side effect? In ixgbe start, > it will > always disable it first and then re-enable it, so it's safe. I think you mean we can disable intr anyway even if it has been disabled. Sounds more like why we don't need this patch :) > > Thanks, > Michael > >