On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 16:10:04 +0800
Chaoyong He <chaoyong...@corigine.com> wrote:

>  
> +RTE_EXPORT_EXPERIMENTAL_SYMBOL(rte_eth_dev_get_vlan_filter_conf, 25.07)
> +int
> +rte_eth_dev_get_vlan_filter_conf(uint16_t port_id,
> +             struct rte_vlan_filter_conf *vf_conf)
> +{
> +     struct rte_eth_dev *dev;
> +
> +     RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -ENODEV);
> +     dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
> +
> +     if (vf_conf == NULL) {
> +             RTE_ETHDEV_LOG_LINE(ERR,
> +                     "Cannot get ethdev port %u vlan filter configuration to 
> NULL",
> +                     port_id);
> +             return -EINVAL;
> +     }
> +
> +     memcpy(vf_conf, &dev->data->vlan_filter_conf, sizeof(struct 
> rte_vlan_filter_conf));

Could just be a structure assignment which would preserve type safety.

> +
> +     rte_ethdev_trace_vlan_filter_conf_get(port_id, vf_conf);
> +
> +     return 0;
> +}
> +

Not sure if adding new accessor function is really needed.
Unfortunately, all of dev->data is exposed in DPDK API already.

Reply via email to