> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yi...@intel.com] > Sent: Monday, 7 February 2022 13.36 > > On 2/7/2022 12:18 PM, Morten Brørup wrote: > >> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yi...@intel.com] > >> Sent: Monday, 7 February 2022 12.46 > >> > >> On 2/7/2022 1:47 AM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote: > >>> Added the ethdev dump API which provides functions for query > private > >> info > >> > >> Isn't API and function are same thing in this contexts? > >> > >>> from device. There exists many private properties in different PMD > >> drivers, > >>> such as adapter state, Rx/Tx func algorithm in hns3 PMD. The > >> information of > >>> these properties is important for debug. As the information is > >> private, > >>> the new API is introduced.> > >> > >> In the patch title 'ethdev' is duplicated, can you fix it? > >> > >> > >>> Signed-off-by: Min Hu (Connor) <humi...@huawei.com> > >>> Acked-by: Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com> > >>> Acked-by: Ray Kinsella <m...@ashroe.eu> > >>> Acked-by: Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khapa...@broadcom.com> > > > > [...] > > > >>> @@ -990,6 +990,20 @@ typedef int > (*eth_representor_info_get_t)(struct > >> rte_eth_dev *dev, > >>> typedef int (*eth_rx_metadata_negotiate_t)(struct rte_eth_dev > *dev, > >>> uint64_t *features); > >>> > >>> +/** > >>> + * @internal > >>> + * Dump ethdev private info to a file. > >>> + * > >> > >> It doesn't dump the 'ethdev' private info, it dumps the private info > >> from device. > > > > It seems perfectly clear to me. How would you prefer it phrased > instead? > > > > What described in the document is more accurate, > "query private info from device". > > What we are dumping here is not ethdev private info, it is device > private info, > and we really don't know what that data may be in the ethdev layer. > > Also there is a chance that 'ethdev private info' can be confused with > 'ethdev->data->dev_private'
OK. Now I got your point! The difference is very subtle. > > > [...] > > > >> > >>> + */ > >>> +__rte_experimental > >>> +int rte_eth_dev_priv_dump(FILE *file, uint16_t port_id); > >>> + > >> > >> What do you think to have the 'port_id' as first argument to be > >> consistent > >> with the other APIs? > > > > The _dump APIs in other libraries have the file pointer as the first > parameter, so let's follow that convention here too. No need to move > the port_id parameter here. > > > > Yes, for most of the _dump() APIs, file pointer seems is the first > argument, > bu they are from various libraries. > > Within the ethdev APIs, I think it makes sense that all APIs start with > 'port_id' parameter for consistency, like done in: > rte_flow_dev_dump(uint16_t port_id, ...) > > > Only rte_dma_dump() has the file pointer last, and I didn't catch it > when the function was defined. > > OK. Then I agree with you about following the convention like rte_flow_dev_dump() with the port_id first. I even think Connor got it right the first time, and I proposed following the other convention. It's not easy when there are two opposite conventions. :-) -Morten
