24/04/2022 07:34, Subendu Santra: > 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?
It looks like a bug. It should be |= Feel free to send a fix.
