Hi Ferruh, > -----Original Message----- > From: Yigit, Ferruh > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 4:19 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 3:47 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) I think our lines have got slightly crossed. This patch is doing two things, the check [1] above which is not needed now (after my ixgbe patch). Secondly it is handling the ret code of the rte_pmd_ixgbe_* API's, I think this is useful.
Regards, Bernard.
