[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: clean up rte_eth_dev_info_get

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 2/1/2017 6:10 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yigit, Ferruh
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 5:40 PM
>> To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: clean up rte_eth_dev_info_get
>>
>> On 2/1/2017 4:24 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>>> Hi Wenzhuo,
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Wenzhuo Lu
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 2:39 AM
>>>> To: dev at dpdk.org
>>>> Cc: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>
>>>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: clean up rte_eth_dev_info_get
>>>>
>>>> It'not appropriate to call rte_eth_dev_info_get in PMD,
>>>> as rte_eth_dev_info_get need to get info from PMD.
>>>> Remove rte_eth_dev_info_get from PMD code and get the
>>>> info directly.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c | 144 ++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>>>>  1 file changed, 68 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c
>>>> index 64ce55a..f14a68b 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c
>>>> @@ -4401,17 +4401,17 @@ static int ixgbevf_dev_xstats_get_names(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
>>>>  	int rar_entry;
>>>>  	uint8_t *new_mac = (uint8_t *)(mac_addr);
>>>>  	struct rte_eth_dev *dev;
>>>> -	struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info;
>>>> +	struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev;
>>>>
>>>>  	RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port, -ENODEV);
>>>>
>>>>  	dev = &rte_eth_devices[port];
>>>> -	rte_eth_dev_info_get(port, &dev_info);
>>>> +	pci_dev = IXGBE_DEV_TO_PCI(dev);
>>>>
>>>> -	if (is_ixgbe_pmd(dev_info.driver_name) != 0)
>>>> +	if (is_ixgbe_pmd(dev->data->drv_name))
>>>>  		return -ENOTSUP;
>>>
>>> I wonder why do we need now that it is really an ixgbe device all over the place?
>>
>> This device specific API, so it is missing merits of abstraction layer,
>> application can these APIs with any port_id, API should be protected for it.
> 
> Ah ok, my bad - didn't realize from the patch that it affects only device specific API :)
> Would It be too much hassle to move these functions into a separate file (rte_ixgbe_pmd.c or so)?

Not sure about the effort it requires, but I second that.

> Konstantin
> 
>>
>>> Konstantin
>>>
>