[dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix ixgbe private API calling
ferruh.yigit at intel.com
Wed Jan 11 17:19:05 CET 2017
On 1/11/2017 3:47 PM, Iremonger, Bernard wrote:
> Hi Ferruh,
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yigit, Ferruh
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 3:27 PM
>> To: Iremonger, Bernard <bernard.iremonger at intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo
>> <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
>> Cc: Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu at intel.com>; stable at dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix ixgbe
>> private API calling
>> On 1/11/2017 3:20 PM, Iremonger, Bernard wrote:
>>> Hi Wenzhuo,
>>>>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix ixgbe private API
>>>>> Some ixgbe private APIs are added to expose ixgbe specific functions.
>>>>> When they're used by testpmd, there's no check for if the NICs are
>>>>> Other NICs also have chance to call these APIs.
>>>>> This patch add the check and the feedback print.
>>>> I am not sure that testpmd is the right place to do this.
>>>> The rte_pmd_ixgbe_* functions are public API's which can be called by
>>>> other applications.
>>>> The checks should be in the rte_pmd_ixgbe_* API's
>>> It is useful to handle the return code -ENOTSUP in testpmd.
>> Makes sense, and I think it is good idea to add them in your patch, since it
>> introduces returning -ENOTSUP, would you mind sending a new version of
>> your patch with this update?
>> So we can drop this patch completely.
> I don't think this patch should be dropped.
> Testpmd is already handling -EINVAL and -ENODEV.
> It makes sense for it to handle -ENOTSUP for the cases in the patch.
This patch adds driver check  before ixgbe APIs, since now that check
is done within ixgbe APIs by your patch. Why do we need this patch at all?
if (strstr(dev_info.driver_name, "ixgbe") != NULL)
More information about the dev