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

[Iremonger, Bernard]

Hi Ferruh,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 4:19 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 3:47 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?
> 
> [1]
> if (strstr(dev_info.driver_name, "ixgbe") != NULL)
 
I think our lines have got slightly crossed.
This patch is doing two things, the check [1] above which is not needed now (after my ixgbe patch).
Secondly it is handling the ret code of the rte_pmd_ixgbe_* API's, I think this is useful.

Regards,

Bernard.