Hi Stephen, Could you please help us understand the rationale behind showing just the last non-owned port in case the port mask was not specified? I really appreciate your help in this regard.
Regards, Subendu. On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 11:04 AM Subendu Santra <sube...@arista.com> wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > We were going through the patch set: > https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20200715212228.28010-7-step...@networkplumber.org/ > and hoping to get clarification on the behaviour if post mask is not > specified in the input to `dpdk-proc-info` tool. > > Specifically, In PATCH v3 6/7, we see this: > > + /* If no port mask was specified, one will be provided */ > + if (enabled_port_mask == 0) { > + RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(i) { > + enabled_port_mask |= 1u << i; > > > However, in PATCH v4 8/8, we see this: > > + /* If no port mask was specified, then show non-owned ports */ > + if (enabled_port_mask == 0) { > + RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(i) > + enabled_port_mask = 1ul << i; > + } > > > Was there any specific reason to show just the last non-owned port in case > the port mask was not specified? > Should we show all non-owned ports in case the user doesn’t specify any > port mask? > > Regards, > Subendu. > > > >
