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

[Iremonger, Bernard]

Hi Konstantin,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ananyev,
> Konstantin
> Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 6:10 PM
> To: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit 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
> 
> 
> 
> > -----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)?
> Konstantin
> 
> >
> > > Konstantin
> > >
All the device specific API functions are prefixed with rte_pmd_ixgbe so I don't think a separate file is necessary.

Regards,

Bernard.