[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] af_packet: make the device detachable

2016-02-10 Thread Wojciech Żmuda
Hi Bruce, >The use of "deinitialization" sounds awkward Thank you for your interest. I called it deinitialization in opposition to an initialization of a device. As I'm not a native English speaker, I trust your opinion and I'll try to rephrase this. Hi Bernard, >What parameters do you use with

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] af_packet: make the device detachable

2016-02-10 Thread John W. Linville
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 04:42:53PM +0100, Wojciech ?muda wrote: > Bernard, Bruce, I have a question, if I may. Do you know what is the > reason that rte_pmd_af_packet_devinit() is the only non-static device > initialization function among all the dpdk drivers? There's even a > comment in the rte_e

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] af_packet: make the device detachable

2016-02-09 Thread Wojciech Zmuda
Implement rte_pmd_af_packet_devuninit() exposed through struct rte_driver.uninit() and set dev_flags to RTE_ETH_DEV_DETACHABLE, to allow af_packet device deinitialization with API function rte_eth_dev_detach(). This fixes memory leak by freeing memory allocated during initialization. During device

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] af_packet: make the device detachable

2016-02-09 Thread Bruce Richardson
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 05:09:06PM +0100, Wojciech Zmuda wrote: > Implement rte_pmd_af_packet_devuninit() exposed through struct > rte_driver.uninit() and set dev_flags to RTE_ETH_DEV_DETACHABLE, > to allow af_packet device deinitialization with API function > rte_eth_dev_detach(). This fixes memor