On 9/22/2022 8:41 AM, Chengwen Feng wrote:
This patch support gets port's error handling mode by
rte_eth_dev_info_get() API.
Currently, the defined modes include:
1) NONE: it means no error handling modes are supported by this port.
2) PASSIVE: passive error handling, after the PMD detect that a reset
is required, the PMD reports RTE_ETH_EVENT_INTR_RESET event, and
application invoke rte_eth_dev_reset() to recover the port.
Signed-off-by: Chengwen Feng <fengcheng...@huawei.com>
<...>
diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
index de9e970d4d..930b0a2fff 100644
--- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
+++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h
@@ -1848,6 +1848,19 @@ enum rte_eth_representor_type {
RTE_ETH_REPRESENTOR_PF, /**< representor of Physical Function. */
};
+/**
+ * Ethernet device error handling mode.
Needs to be experimental, if decides to keep.
+ */
+enum rte_eth_err_handle_mode {
+ /** No error handling modes are supported. */
+ RTE_ETH_ERROR_HANDLE_MODE_NONE,
+ /** Passive error handling, after the PMD detect that a reset is
+ * required, the PMD reports @see RTE_ETH_EVENT_INTR_RESET event, and
+ * application invoke @see rte_eth_dev_reset to recover the port.
+ */
+ RTE_ETH_ERROR_HANDLE_MODE_PASSIVE,
Hi Chengwen,
Is the intention of 'PASSIVE' / 'PROACTIVE' mode to let application
decide which event to register? Like some kind of capability?
If mode == RTE_ETH_ERROR_HANDLE_MODE_PASSIVE
register RTE_ETH_EVENT_INTR_RESET
if mode == RTE_ETH_ERROR_HANDLE_MODE_PROACTIVE
register ERR_RECOVERING | RECOVERY_SUCCESS | RECOVERY_FAILED
Can't a PMD support both?
Or is application really needs to know this, what happens if it register
all events and implements related actions for it?
+};
+
/**
* A structure used to retrieve the contextual information of
* an Ethernet device, such as the controlling driver of the
@@ -1908,8 +1921,12 @@ struct rte_eth_dev_info {
* embedded managed interconnect/switch.
*/
struct rte_eth_switch_info switch_info;
+ /** Supported error handling mode. @see enum rte_eth_err_handle_mode */
+ uint8_t err_handle_mode;
I guess 'uint8_t' is used to save space, but 'enum' is mostly integer
(although as far as I remember compiler can select smaller type is cases
fit it), so I concern if it case any warning. If not agree to use
smaller type, since we know possible number of handler type is limited
and small.
- uint64_t reserved_64s[2]; /**< Reserved for future fields */
+ uint8_t reserved_8; /**< Reserved for future fields */
+ uint16_t reserved_16s[3]; /**< Reserved for future fields */
+ uint64_t reserved_64; /**< Reserved for future fields */
void *reserved_ptrs[2]; /**< Reserved for future fields */
};
