Hi Thomas,
> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 5:18 PM > To: Lu, Wenzhuo; Jerin Jacob > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Ananyev, Konstantin; Stephen Hemminger; Richardson, > Bruce; Chen, Jing D; Liang, Cunming; Wu, Jingjing; Zhang, Helin > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/4] lib/librte_ether: support device reset > > 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? As you said below and discussed before, it's a wrapper of the existing functions. The benefit is helping the users avoid the complex implementation when they want to stop and re-start the device. > 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. Yes, you're right. Still something left. I'll add more detail. > > > 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. I'll add more info. Thanks.
