On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:05:25AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

 lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
index 4790faf..61f44e2 100644
--- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
+++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c

@@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ struct rte_eth_dev *
 		return NULL;
 	}
 
-	memset(&rte_eth_devices[port_id], 0, sizeof(*eth_dev->data));
+	memset(&rte_eth_dev_data[port_id], 0, sizeof(struct rte_eth_dev_data));

Not directly related to the this issue, but, after fix, this may have
issues with secondary process.

There were patches sent to fix this.

I mean this one:
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-January/054422.html

d948f596fee2 ("ethdev: fix port data mismatched in multiple process
model") should have fixed it.

Think about case, where secondary process uses a virtual PMD, which does
a rte_eth_dev_allocate() call, shouldn't this corrupt primary process
device data?

Yes, it may. However, I doubt that's the typical usage. 

But this is a use case, and broken now,

I thought it was broken since the beginning?

and fix is known.

And there is already a fix?

Should be
fixed I think.

Sure.

quoted

Besides that,
most of virtual PMDs don't support Multipleprocess: git grep shows pcap
is the only one that does claim Multipleprocess is supported.

I guess you searched for NIC feature documentation for this.

Yes.

But as far
as I know, all virtual drivers can be used in both primary and secondary
process.

Maybe. But it becomes very error-prone to me then when vdev are involved
in both primary and secondary process. I don't think current code is (or
designed to be) strong enough to support that.

I don't know it's allowed to use hotplug or not in the multiple process
model. If yes, I think there would be many ways to break it.

Honestly, the multiple process doesn't look like a good/clean design to
me, especially when some piece of code claim to support it while some
other doesn't.

So my point was, yes, there is a bug, we should fix it. But it seems
that there could be so many bugs if we hugely expand the test coverage
of the multiple process feature.

	--yliu