On Tue, 03 May 2022 10:47:58 +0200 Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote:
> 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. > > Agree. Thats a bug. It would be good to have a "show all ports" flag to proc-info. To show all ports including owned.
