On 2/17/23 16:41, Jiawei(Jonny) Wang wrote:
Hi Andrew,
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru>
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 8:57 PM
To: Jiawei(Jonny) Wang <jiaw...@nvidia.com>; Slava Ovsiienko
<viachesl...@nvidia.com>; Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com>; NBU-Contact-
Thomas Monjalon (EXTERNAL) <tho...@monjalon.net>;
ferruh.yi...@amd.com; Aman Singh <aman.deep.si...@intel.com>; Yuying
Zhang <yuying.zh...@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Raslan Darawsheh <rasl...@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] ethdev: add Tx queue mapping of aggregated ports
[snip]
--- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
+++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
@@ -6946,6 +6946,78 @@
rte_eth_buffer_split_get_supported_hdr_ptypes(uint16_t port_id, uint32_t
*ptypes
return j;
}
+int rte_eth_dev_count_aggr_ports(uint16_t port_id) {
+ struct rte_eth_dev *dev;
+ int ret;
+
+ RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -ENODEV);
+ dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
+
+ if (*dev->dev_ops->count_aggr_ports == NULL)
Is it OK that tracing is long in this case?
Do you mean that we don't need tracing in this case?
Sorry for typo. I'm asking if it is OK that tracing is *lost* in this case.
+ return 0;
+ ret = eth_err(port_id, (*dev->dev_ops->count_aggr_ports)(port_id));
+
+ rte_eth_trace_count_aggr_ports(port_id, ret);
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
[snip]
