On 5/31/2023 5:31 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> 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.
>
Hi Dengdui,
It looks like there is no better suggestion, lets not block this patch
more and continue with
'rte_eth_dev_is_valid_rxq()' & 'rte_eth_dev_is_valid_txq()' API names.
Can you please send a v4, with changes in v3 but API names as above, and
more description in the API documentation for what 'valid' means?
>>>
>>> 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]
>>
>
