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

[Iremonger, Bernard]

Hi Konstantin,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 9:50 AM
> To: Iremonger, Bernard <bernard.iremonger at intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh
> <ferruh.yigit 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
> 
> Hi Bernard,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Iremonger, Bernard
> > Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 9:21 AM
> > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh
> > <ferruh.yigit 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
> >
> > Hi Konstantin,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ananyev,
> > > Konstantin
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 6:10 PM
> > > To: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----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
> > > > >
> > All the device specific API functions are prefixed with rte_pmd_ixgbe
> 
> That's ok.
> 
> 
> > so I don't think a separate file is necessary.
> 
> So far I didn't say it is necessary.
> Though I think it would be good to group these functions in a separate file to
> help avoid confusion (as happened to me) and keep ixgbe_ethdev.c smaller
> and cleaner.
> Again would be easier to maintain things in future, when more folks will
> come up with some extensions for it.
> That's why I am asking:  would it be a lot of work to do?
> It is probably worth doing it now, while we have this API relatively small.
> Konstantin
> 
I would need to investigate what is involved in moving the rte_pmd_ixgbe_* functions to a separate file.
They may be using some of the static functions and data in the ixgbe_ethdev.c  file which could be a problem.
The rte_pmd_ixgbe_* functions are considered an "interim solution" until a "generic solution" is agreed.
It might be best to postpone this work until the "generic solution" is agreed.

Regards,

Bernard.