[PATCH] ethdev: introduce ethdev dump API

[Min Hu (Connor)]

Hi, Ferruh,

在 2022/2/7 23:35, Ferruh Yigit 写道:
> 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,

what is the difference between ethdev and device?
>>> 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'
what I want to dump is exactly the 'ethdev->data->dev_private'.
'ethdev private info' means 'ethdev->data->dev_private'.
why confused?
>>
>> 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.
> 
> .