[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] latencystats: added new library for latency stats

[Pattan, Reshma]

Hi 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Horton, Remy
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 2:22 AM
> To: Pattan, Reshma <reshma.pattan at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] latencystats: added new library for
> latency stats
> 
> 
> On 07/11/2016 21:14, Reshma Pattan wrote:
> [..]
>  > Signed-off-by: Reshma Pattan <reshma.pattan at intel.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Remy Horton <remy.horton at intel.com>
> 
> 
>  > +static void
>  > +metrics_display(int port_id)
>  > +{
>  > +    struct rte_stat_value *stats;
>  > +    struct rte_metric_name *names;
> 
> Note that rte_stats_value is being renamed to rte_metric_value in the next
> version of the metrics library..
> 


Ok.

> 
>  > +int
>  > +rte_latencystats_init(uint64_t samp_intvl,
>  > +        rte_latency_stats_flow_type_fn user_cb)
>  > +{
> 
> Far as I can tell, user_cb is always NULL, and the two callbacks it
> eventually get passed to don't use it. There any reason the function
> signature has it at all?
> 

Yes,  with the possibility of getting flow based latency stats requiments in future, user callback is added to signature.
With this user callback, it is up to the application to identify the flow type and return the flow type. Library will maintain latency calculation per flow type 
in a separate table.  Basically for future enhancement.

> 
>  > +++ b/lib/librte_latencystats/rte_latencystats_version.map
>  > @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
>  > +DPDK_16.11 {
> 
> This will need to change to 17.02 once new release cycle starts. :)
> 
> Will also need to add entry to release_17_02.rst once it becomes available..
> 

Ok.

Thanks,
Reshma