17/03/2021 12:30, oulijun:
> 2021/3/12 19:21, Thomas Monjalon:
> > 12/03/2021 11:29, oulijun:
> >> 2021/3/10 15:59, Thomas Monjalon:
> >>> 10/03/2021 02:48, oulijun:
> >>>> Can we add an API such as rte_eth_get_device(pord_id)
> >>>>
> >>>> for example:
> >>>> struct rte_eth_dev *
> >>>> rte_eth_get_device(uint16_t port_id)
> >>>> {
> >>>> return &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
> >>>> }
> >>> An application is not supposed to access the struct rte_eth_dev.
> >>> Which info do you need from this struct?
> >>
> >> Applications cannot directly access the global variable
> >> rte_eth_devices[]. To obtain information about rte_eth_dev, they need to
> >> access the global variable through APIs instead of directly.
> >
> > That's not the question.
> > Which device info do you need, which is not already provided by
> > one of the function rte_eth_*info* ?
> > rte_eth_dev_get_dcb_info
> > rte_eth_dev_get_reg_info
> > rte_eth_dev_info_get
> > rte_eth_rx_queue_info_get
> > rte_eth_tx_queue_info_get
> > rte_eth_dev_get_module_info
> >
> Hi, Thomas
> I think dev->data->nb_tx_queues can be obtained through
> rte_eth_info_get, but dev->data->tx_queue_state[queue_id] has nowhere to
> be obtained. I think a patch needs to be added to obtain
> tx_queue_state[queue_id] through rte_eth_tx_queue_info_get. What do you
> think?
Yes it looks OK to add more queue info in rte_eth_*x_queue_info_get.
