On 5/22/2023 2:58 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> On 5/22/23 16:09, Dengdui Huang wrote:
>> The API rte_eth_dev_is_valid_rxq/txq checks
>> the port ID validity and then the Rx/Tx queue ID is valid.
>
> What is valid Tx/Rx queue? It depends on on caller
> expectations. Some functions are satisfied with just
> check vs configured number of queues. Some require
> the queue to be setup. May be some should require
> the queue to be started.
>
> So, I suggest to avoid term "valid" and be more precise
> here and API naming.
>
I understand the concern 'valid' keyword, but we already have an API as
'rte_eth_dev_is_valid_port()', which does similar checks,
so 'rte_eth_dev_is_valid_rxq()' & 'rte_eth_dev_is_valid_txq()' looks
consistent with it.
v3 has API names, 'rte_eth_dev_rxq_avail()' & 'rte_eth_dev_txq_avail()',
I am not sure about these naming too, it feels like queues are valid but
it maybe in available and not available states.
@Andrew, do you have any suggestion on the API naming?
If not I am for going with rte_eth_dev_is_valid_rxq()' &
'rte_eth_dev_is_valid_txq()' mainly because of existing
'rte_eth_dev_is_valid_port()' API.
Perhaps we can elaborate what 'valid' means in API documentation to help
users.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dengdui Huang <huangdeng...@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> doc/guides/rel_notes/release_23_07.rst | 5 ++++
>> lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++
>> lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> lib/ethdev/version.map | 4 +++
>> 4 files changed, 75 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_23_07.rst
>> b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_23_07.rst
>> index a9b1293689..19e645156f 100644
>> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_23_07.rst
>> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_23_07.rst
>> @@ -56,6 +56,11 @@ New Features
>> =======================================================
>> +* **Added ethdev Rx/Tx queue id check API.**
>> +
>> + Added ethdev Rx/Tx queue id check API which provides functions
>
> id -> ID
>
>> + for check if Rx/Tx queue id is valid.
>
> id -> ID
>
>> +
>
> It should be two empty lines here and just one above.
>
>> Removed Items
>> -------------
>> diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>> index 4d03255683..3d85218127 100644
>> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>> @@ -407,6 +407,36 @@ rte_eth_dev_is_valid_port(uint16_t port_id)
>> return is_valid;
>> }
>> +int
>> +rte_eth_dev_is_valid_rxq(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t queue_id)
>> +{
>> + struct rte_eth_dev *dev;
>> +
>> + RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -ENODEV);
>> + dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
>> +
>> + if (queue_id >= dev->data->nb_rx_queues ||
>> + dev->data->rx_queues[queue_id] == NULL)
>
> We already have internal eth_dev_validate_tx_queue(). Shouldn't
> it be used here?
>
> Also, some functions check that queues array is not NULL.
> If the the is excessive after queue number check, it
> should be consistent everywhere and corresponding check
> of the array pointer vs NULL should be removed in a separate
> cleanup patch. If the check is required in some corner cases
> (I hope no), it should be here as well.
>
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> [snip]
>
