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

[Lu, Wenzhuo]

Hi Bernard,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iremonger, Bernard
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 6:27 PM
> To: Lu, Wenzhuo; dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: Wu, Jingjing; stable at dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix ixgbe private API calling
> 
> Hi Wenzhuo,
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Wenzhuo Lu
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 2:48 AM
> > To: dev at dpdk.org
> > Cc: Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu at intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo
> > <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>; stable at dpdk.org
> > 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
To be safer, it's better to add a check in the APIs. 
But the APIs is so called private API, not really public.  Considering if we have the same function on different NICs, for example we have rte_pmd_ixgbe_a and rte_pmd_i40e_a.
APP still need to call them one by one, like
ret = rte_pmd_ixgbe_a;
ret = rte_pmd_i40e_a;

then, why not add the check, like
If (NIC is ixgbe)
	ret = rte_pmd_ixgbe_a;
if (NIC is i40e)
	ret = rte_pmd_i40e_a;

testpmd is an example to let the users to know how to use the APIs. They should follow the example.
How about your opinion?