On 1/11/2017 3:47 PM, Iremonger, Bernard wrote: > Hi Ferruh, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Yigit, Ferruh >> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 3:27 PM >> To: Iremonger, Bernard <bernard.iremon...@intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo >> <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org >> Cc: Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com>; sta...@dpdk.org >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix ixgbe >> private API calling >> >> On 1/11/2017 3:20 PM, Iremonger, Bernard wrote: >>> Hi Wenzhuo, >>> >>> <snip> >>>>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix ixgbe private API >>>>> calling >>>>> >>>>> Some ixgbe private APIs are added to expose ixgbe specific functions. >>>>> When they're used by testpmd, there's no check for if the NICs are >> ixgbe. >>>>> Other NICs also have chance to call these APIs. >>>>> This patch add the check and the feedback print. >>>> >>>> I am not sure that testpmd is the right place to do this. >>>> The rte_pmd_ixgbe_* functions are public API's which can be called by >>>> other applications. >>>> The checks should be in the rte_pmd_ixgbe_* API's >>> >>> It is useful to handle the return code -ENOTSUP in testpmd. >>> >> >> Makes sense, and I think it is good idea to add them in your patch, since it >> introduces returning -ENOTSUP, would you mind sending a new version of >> your patch with this update? >> So we can drop this patch completely. >> >> Thanks, >> ferruh >> > I don't think this patch should be dropped. > Testpmd is already handling -EINVAL and -ENODEV. > It makes sense for it to handle -ENOTSUP for the cases in the patch.
This patch adds driver check [1] before ixgbe APIs, since now that check is done within ixgbe APIs by your patch. Why do we need this patch at all? [1] if (strstr(dev_info.driver_name, "ixgbe") != NULL) > > Regards, > > Bernard. >
