[dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix ixgbe private API calling

Ferruh Yigit 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,
>>> <snip>
>>>>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix ixgbe private API
>>>>> calling
>>>>> 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
>> ixgbe.
>>>>> 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.
>> Thanks,
>> ferruh
> 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 [1] 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)

> Regards,
> Bernard.

More information about the dev mailing list