[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: Fix wrong message when no port started

[De Lara Guarch, Pablo]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 1:53 PM
> To: Qiu, Michael; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] testpmd: Fix wrong message when no port
> started
> 
> Pablo, what is your opinion on this patch?

Sorry for the delay, I missed this email.
> 
> 2015-02-03 16:37, Michael Qiu:
> > The log message is wrong when no port started.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Qiu <michael.qiu at intel.com>
> > ---
> >  app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> > index 773b8af..ebf9448 100644
> > --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> > +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.c
> > @@ -1423,7 +1423,7 @@ start_port(portid_t pid)
> >  	if (need_check_link_status && !no_link_check)
> >  		check_all_ports_link_status(nb_ports, RTE_PORT_ALL);
> >  	else
> > -		printf("Please stop the ports first\n");
> > +		printf("Please start at least one port first\n");
> 
> Why the word "first"?
> What could lead to this situation? Wrong pid?
> Shouldn't be an error returned?

I see no reason why we should change this.
Code has changed since, so now it only goes there if user is trying to start a port that has been already started.
If pid is wrong, it will show "Port invalid".

So, in a summary, NACK.

Thanks,
Pablo
> 
> >
> >  	printf("Done\n");
> >  	return 0;
>