[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: clean up rte_eth_dev_info_get

Ananyev, Konstantin konstantin.ananyev at intel.com
Wed Feb 1 19:10:00 CET 2017



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 5:40 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: clean up rte_eth_dev_info_get
> 
> On 2/1/2017 4:24 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> > Hi Wenzhuo,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Wenzhuo Lu
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 2:39 AM
> >> To: dev at dpdk.org
> >> Cc: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>
> >> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: clean up rte_eth_dev_info_get
> >>
> >> It'not appropriate to call rte_eth_dev_info_get in PMD,
> >> as rte_eth_dev_info_get need to get info from PMD.
> >> Remove rte_eth_dev_info_get from PMD code and get the
> >> info directly.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c | 144 ++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> >>  1 file changed, 68 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c
> >> index 64ce55a..f14a68b 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c
> >> @@ -4401,17 +4401,17 @@ static int ixgbevf_dev_xstats_get_names(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> >>  	int rar_entry;
> >>  	uint8_t *new_mac = (uint8_t *)(mac_addr);
> >>  	struct rte_eth_dev *dev;
> >> -	struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info;
> >> +	struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev;
> >>
> >>  	RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port, -ENODEV);
> >>
> >>  	dev = &rte_eth_devices[port];
> >> -	rte_eth_dev_info_get(port, &dev_info);
> >> +	pci_dev = IXGBE_DEV_TO_PCI(dev);
> >>
> >> -	if (is_ixgbe_pmd(dev_info.driver_name) != 0)
> >> +	if (is_ixgbe_pmd(dev->data->drv_name))
> >>  		return -ENOTSUP;
> >
> > I wonder why do we need now that it is really an ixgbe device all over the place?
> 
> This device specific API, so it is missing merits of abstraction layer,
> application can these APIs with any port_id, API should be protected for it.

Ah ok, my bad - didn't realize from the patch that it affects only device specific API :)
Would It be too much hassle to move these functions into a separate file (rte_ixgbe_pmd.c or so)?
Konstantin

> 
> > Konstantin
> >



More information about the dev mailing list