[PATCH v11 1/5] ethdev: support get port error handling mode
Andrew Rybchenko
andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru
Mon Oct 10 10:38:27 CEST 2022
On 10/9/22 12:10, Chengwen Feng wrote:
> This patch support gets port's error handling mode by
> rte_eth_dev_info_get() API.
Just: "Add error handling mode to device info."
>
> Currently, the defined modes include:
> 1) NONE: it means no error handling modes are supported by this port.
> 2) PASSIVE: passive error handling, after the PMD detect that a reset
> is required, the PMD reports RTE_ETH_EVENT_INTR_RESET event, and
> application invoke rte_eth_dev_reset() to recover the port.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chengwen Feng <fengchengwen at huawei.com>
With review notes applied (may be except usage of reserved
fields):
Reviewed-by: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru>
> diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
> index e8d1e1c658..3443bf20e1 100644
> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
> @@ -1629,6 +1629,22 @@ enum rte_eth_representor_type {
> RTE_ETH_REPRESENTOR_PF, /**< representor of Physical Function. */
> };
>
> +/**
> + * @warning
> + * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this enumeration may change without prior notice.
> + *
> + * Ethernet device error handling mode.
> + */
> +enum rte_eth_err_handle_mode {
> + /** No error handling modes are supported. */
> + RTE_ETH_ERROR_HANDLE_MODE_NONE,
> + /** Passive error handling, after the PMD detect that a reset is
> + * required, the PMD reports @see RTE_ETH_EVENT_INTR_RESET event, and
> + * application invoke @see rte_eth_dev_reset to recover the port.
> + */
> + RTE_ETH_ERROR_HANDLE_MODE_PASSIVE,
> +};
> +
> /**
> * A structure used to retrieve the contextual information of
> * an Ethernet device, such as the controlling driver of the
> @@ -1689,8 +1705,12 @@ struct rte_eth_dev_info {
> * embedded managed interconnect/switch.
> */
> struct rte_eth_switch_info switch_info;
> + /** Supported error handling mode. @see enum rte_eth_err_handle_mode */
> + uint8_t err_handle_mode;
IMHO, it must be
enum rte_eth_err_handle_mode err_handle_mode;
Yes, it takes a bit more space, but it is a control path and
code clearness is more important here than few extra bytes.
>
> - uint64_t reserved_64s[2]; /**< Reserved for future fields */
> + uint8_t reserved_8; /**< Reserved for future fields */
> + uint16_t reserved_16s[3]; /**< Reserved for future fields */
> + uint64_t reserved_64; /**< Reserved for future fields */
As far as I know it is done as per Stephen review notes, but
I'm not really sure why it is a right way in ABI breaking
release. I'd not touch it and just add a new field.
> void *reserved_ptrs[2]; /**< Reserved for future fields */
> };
>
More information about the dev
mailing list