[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] net/i40e: enable VF untag drop

Iremonger, Bernard bernard.iremonger at intel.com
Tue Mar 14 19:16:27 CET 2017


Hi Ferruh, Qi,

<snip>

> > >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] net/i40e: enable VF untag drop
> > >>
> > >> On 3/3/2017 1:59 AM, Qi Zhang wrote:
> > >>> Add a new private API to support the untag drop enable/disable for
> > >>> specific VF.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>
> > >>> ---
> > >>>  drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c  | 49
> > >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>>  drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h | 18 +++++++++++++++
> > >>
> > >> Shared library is giving build error because of API is missing in
> > >> *version.map file
> > >>
> > >>>  2 files changed, 67 insertions(+)
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> <...>
> > >>
> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
> > >>> b/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h index a0ad88c..895e2cc 100644
> > >>> --- a/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
> > >>> +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h
> > >>> @@ -332,4 +332,22 @@ int rte_pmd_i40e_get_vf_stats(uint8_t port,
> > >>> int rte_pmd_i40e_reset_vf_stats(uint8_t port,
> > >>>  				uint16_t vf_id);
> > >>>
> > >>> +/**
> > >>> + * Enable/Disable VF untag drop
> > >>> + *
> > >>> + * @param port
> > >>> + *    The port identifier of the Ethernet device.
> > >>> + * @param vf_id
> > >>> + *    VF on witch to enable/disable
> > >>> + * @param on
> > >>> + *    Enable or Disable
> > >>> + * @retura
> > >>
> > >> @return
> > >>
> > >>> + *  - (0) if successful.
> > >>> + *  -(-ENODEVE) if *port* invalid
> > >>> + *  -(-EINVAL) if bad parameter.
> > >>> + */
> > >>> +int rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_untag_drop(uint8_t port,
> > >>> +					uint16_t vf_id,
> > >>> +					uint8_t on);
> > >>
> > >> As discussed previously, I believe it is good to keep following
> > >> syntax in
> > API:
> > >> <name_space>_<object>_<action>, for this API it becomes:
> > > I think, current naming rule is <name_space>_<action>_<object> right?

 This seems to be the existing naming convention.

> >
> > Overall, I am not aware of any defined naming rule, I am for defining one.
> >
> > > See below
> > > 		rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_anti_spoof;
> > >         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_filter;
> > >         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_insert;
> > >         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_stripq;
> > >         rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_tag; so what's wrong with this
> >
> > This breaks hierarchical approach, if you think API name as tree.
> > Easier to see this when you sort the APIs, ns_set_x, ns_reset_x,
> > ns_del_x will spread to different locations.
> I agree with your point, I had thought your concern is only about this patch,
> but actually it's not.
> >
> > This looks OK when you work on one type of object already, but with
> > all APIs in concern, I believe object based grouping is better than
> > action based grouping.
> 
> >
> > And why do you think above one is better? Again, as long as one is
> > agreed on,
> I don't, sorry for make you misunderstand

I don't think changing the name convention at this point is a good idea.
It would be better to remain consistent with the existing naming convention.
Otherwise both naming conventions will exist for the rte_pmd_i40e_* API's.
 

> > >> rte_pmd_i40e_vf_vlan_untag_drop_set(), and perhaps "set" can be
> > removed?
> > >>
> > >>> +
> > >>>  #endif /* _PMD_I40E_H_ */
> > >>>
> > >

Regards,

Bernard.



More information about the dev mailing list