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

Lu, Wenzhuo wenzhuo.lu at intel.com
Fri Feb 3 07:50:31 CET 2017


Hi Ferruh,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 8:16 PM
> To: Bie, Tiwei; Lu, Wenzhuo
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: clean up rte_eth_dev_info_get
> 
> On 1/25/2017 5:24 AM, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 01:13:32PM +0800, Lu, Wenzhuo wrote:
> >> Hi Tiwei,
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Bie, Tiwei
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:17 AM
> >>> To: Lu, Wenzhuo
> >>> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: clean up
> >>> rte_eth_dev_info_get
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:39:22AM +0800, Wenzhuo Lu wrote:
> >>>> 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;
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The return value of is_ixgbe_pmd() is not boolean (actually I think
> >>> it should be based on its name). If we omit the comparison with 0,
> >>> the code looks weird. It looks like it'll return -ENOTSUP if the port's driver
> is ixgbe PMD.
> >>
> >> Yes, it’s weird. But what makes it weird is not the missing comparison but
> the function name.
> >> Better changing it to ixgbe_pmd_check. How about it?
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, I also prefer to change the helper function itself. But I'm not
> > good at the naming. I'd like to hear others' opinion. :-)
> 
> Agree that it looks wrong without 0 comparison.
> 
> Helper function is checking if the given port is an ixgbe port or not,
> unfortunately you need to this for PMD specific APIs.
> So What about is_device_supported(),
> 
> I agree it is better if it returns bool, and I also think it is better if it gets the
> rte_eth_dev as input parameter, validating port based on name is API internal
> knowledge.
> 
> Also instead of name comparison against fixed string, it can be eth_dev-
> >driver->pci_drv.name against driver->name. This makes function more
Thanks for your suggestion. But I don’t get your point here. 
For a specific device, should not the eth_dev->driver->pci_drv.name and the driver->name be the same?


> generic, and perhaps this helper function can be moved into ethdev layer,
> later. For this function needs to get both eth_dev and rte_driver as argument.
> 
> 
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Tiwei Bie
> >



More information about the dev mailing list