[PATCH v6 1/2] ethdev: add Tx queue mapping of aggregated ports

[Andrew Rybchenko]

On 2/17/23 16:41, Jiawei(Jonny) Wang wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru>
>> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 8:57 PM
>> To: Jiawei(Jonny) Wang <jiaweiw at nvidia.com>; Slava Ovsiienko
>> <viacheslavo at nvidia.com>; Ori Kam <orika at nvidia.com>; NBU-Contact-
>> Thomas Monjalon (EXTERNAL) <thomas at monjalon.net>;
>> ferruh.yigit at amd.com; Aman Singh <aman.deep.singh at intel.com>; Yuying
>> Zhang <yuying.zhang at intel.com>
>> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Raslan Darawsheh <rasland at nvidia.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] ethdev: add Tx queue mapping of aggregated ports
>>
> [snip]
>>> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>>> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>>> @@ -6946,6 +6946,78 @@
>> rte_eth_buffer_split_get_supported_hdr_ptypes(uint16_t port_id, uint32_t
>> *ptypes
>>>    	return j;
>>>    }
>>>
>>> +int rte_eth_dev_count_aggr_ports(uint16_t port_id) {
>>> +	struct rte_eth_dev *dev;
>>> +	int ret;
>>> +
>>> +	RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -ENODEV);
>>> +	dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
>>> +
>>> +	if (*dev->dev_ops->count_aggr_ports == NULL)
>>
>> Is it OK that tracing is long in this case?
>>
> 
> Do you mean that we don't need tracing in this case?

Sorry for typo. I'm asking if it is OK that tracing is *lost* in this case.

> 
>>> +		return 0;
>>> +	ret = eth_err(port_id, (*dev->dev_ops->count_aggr_ports)(port_id));
>>> +
>>> +	rte_eth_trace_count_aggr_ports(port_id, ret);
>>> +
>>> +	return ret;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> [snip]
>