[PATCH] ethdev: introduce ethdev dump API

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 2/7/2022 12:56 PM, Morten Brørup wrote:
>> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yigit at intel.com]
>> Sent: Monday, 7 February 2022 13.36
>>
>> On 2/7/2022 12:18 PM, Morten Brørup wrote:
>>>> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yigit at intel.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, 7 February 2022 12.46
>>>>
>>>> On 2/7/2022 1:47 AM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote:
>>>>> Added the ethdev dump API which provides functions for query
>> private
>>>> info
>>>>
>>>> Isn't API and function are same thing in this contexts?
>>>>
>>>>> from device. There exists many private properties in different PMD
>>>> drivers,
>>>>> such as adapter state, Rx/Tx func algorithm in hns3 PMD. The
>>>> information of
>>>>> these properties is important for debug. As the information is
>>>> private,
>>>>> the new API is introduced.>
>>>>
>>>> In the patch title 'ethdev' is duplicated, can you fix it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Min Hu (Connor) <humin29 at huawei.com>
>>>>> Acked-by: Morten Brørup <mb at smartsharesystems.com>
>>>>> Acked-by: Ray Kinsella <mdr at ashroe.eu>
>>>>> Acked-by: Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde at broadcom.com>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> @@ -990,6 +990,20 @@ typedef int
>> (*eth_representor_info_get_t)(struct
>>>> rte_eth_dev *dev,
>>>>>     typedef int (*eth_rx_metadata_negotiate_t)(struct rte_eth_dev
>> *dev,
>>>>>     				       uint64_t *features);
>>>>>
>>>>> +/**
>>>>> + * @internal
>>>>> + * Dump ethdev private info to a file.
>>>>> + *
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't dump the 'ethdev' private info, it dumps the private info
>>>> from device.
>>>
>>> It seems perfectly clear to me. How would you prefer it phrased
>> instead?
>>>
>>
>> What described in the document is more accurate,
>> "query private info from device".
>>
>> What we are dumping here is not ethdev private info, it is device
>> private info,
>> and we really don't know what that data may be in the ethdev layer.
>>
>> Also there is a chance that 'ethdev private info' can be confused with
>> 'ethdev->data->dev_private'
> 
> OK. Now I got your point! The difference is very subtle.
> 
>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +__rte_experimental
>>>>> +int rte_eth_dev_priv_dump(FILE *file, uint16_t port_id);
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> What do you think to have the 'port_id' as first argument to be
>>>> consistent
>>>> with the other APIs?
>>>
>>> The _dump APIs in other libraries have the file pointer as the first
>> parameter, so let's follow that convention here too. No need to move
>> the port_id parameter here.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, for most of the _dump() APIs, file pointer seems is the first
>> argument,
>> bu they are from various libraries.
>>
>> Within the ethdev APIs, I think it makes sense that all APIs start with
>> 'port_id' parameter for consistency, like done in:
>> rte_flow_dev_dump(uint16_t port_id, ...)
>>
>>> Only rte_dma_dump() has the file pointer last, and I didn't catch it
>> when the function was defined.
>>>
> 
> OK. Then I agree with you about following the convention like rte_flow_dev_dump() with the port_id first.
> 
> I even think Connor got it right the first time, and I proposed following the other convention.
> 

Ahh, may bad I missed that, sorry for not commenting on time.


> It's not easy when there are two opposite conventions. :-)
> 

Yep, that is the main issue.