> 05/10/2021 18:35, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > > 04/10/2021 15:56, Konstantin Ananyev:
> > > > Introduce rte_eth_macaddrs_get() to allow user to retrieve all ethernet
> > > > addresses assigned to given port.
> > >
> > > We already have functions to get MAC addresses.
> > > Please explain the difference.
> >
> > rte_eth_macaddr_get() returns just first (primary) MAC address
> > assigned to the port.
> > That one allow user to retrieve all addresses assigned to the port.
>
> I was sure we had other function.
I didn't find one.
If we do, I am ok to drop that change and rework testpmd code to use
existing one instead.
> Anyway, would be good to reference rte_eth_macaddr_get in the commit.
>
>
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * Retrieve the Ethernet addresses of an Ethernet device.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * @param port_id
> > > > + * The port identifier of the Ethernet device.
> > > > + * @param ma
> > > > + * A pointer to an array of structures of type *ether_addr* to be
> > > > filled with
> > > > + * the Ethernet addresses of the Ethernet device.
> > > > + * @param num
> > > > + * Number of elements in the *ma* array.
> > > > + * @return
> > > > + * - number of retrieved addresses if successful
> > > > + * - (-ENODEV) if *port_id* invalid.
> > > > + * - (-EINVAL) if bad parameter.
> > >
> > > Which error if the array is too small?
> >
> > None, we just return up to *num* addresses, that's it.
>
> So we don't know know whether there are more.
rte_eth_dev_info. max_mac_addrs tells max number of MACs for this port.
>
> > > > + */
> > > > +__rte_experimental
> > > > +int rte_eth_macaddrs_get(uint16_t port_id, struct rte_ether_addr ma[],
> > >
> > > Please don't use array syntax in parameters, it should be a pointer.
> > > How do we get the number of returned addresses?
> > >
> > > > + uint32_t num);
> >
> > From above:
> > * @return
> > * - number of retrieved addresses if successful
> >
> > > Another approach would be to get addresses one by one by passing an index.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, it is another possible way.
> > Though current one seems a bit more convenient to me.
>
> It misses a way to get the number of addresses.
>
