2016-06-22 08:25, Lu, Wenzhuo:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> > 2016-06-22 13:29, Jerin Jacob:
> > > Thomas,
> > > As a librte_ether maintainer any comments on this?
> >
> > +1 for adding details and make sure naming is good.
> > I don't really need to comment here because I have already done this comment
> > earlier:
> > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-June/041845.html
> > Thank you for insisting.
> I've add some details in this patch set. If it's not enough, please let me
> know.
> And I think this discussion is about what the API name should be like.
> Actually I think all the existing name is describing what is done by the API
> not when and where it should be used, like dev_start/stop.
You're right, I overlooked it:
+ * The API will stop the port, clear the rx/tx queues, re-setup the rx/tx
+ * queues, restart the port.
Jerin, which detail do you think is needed?
Wenzhuo, why this function is needed?
All these actions are already possible independently.
When looking at ixgbe implementation, I see:
ixgbevf_dev_stats_reset() which is not documented in the API
rte_delay_ms(1000);
do {} while
It looks to be some hacks.
If you really need some workarounds to handle some tricky situations,
maybe that the API is not detailed enough.
> But anyway I'm open for changing the name. Is the name process_reset_intr you
> prefer? Thanks.
Not sure.
If you really intend to add a generic reset, maybe rte_eth_dev_reset()
is a good name. We just need more justification.
After reading the doc, the user can understand it is just a wrapper of
existing functions. But it appears in the code that it does more and can
help in some situations.
