Thanks Ferruh for your quick turnaround!
Sure, I’ll send a patch for your review.
Regards,
Steve
On 1/18/17, 10:39 AM, "Ferruh Yigit" <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote:
On 1/18/2017 4:12 AM, Steve Shin (jonshin) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a question on MAC address replay logic in
rte_eth_dev_config_restore():
>
> lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c:
> code snippet of rte_eth_dev_config_restore()
> ~~
> /* replay MAC address configuration */
> for (i = 0; i < dev_info.max_mac_addrs; i++) {
> addr = dev->data->mac_addrs[i];
>
> /* skip zero address */
> if (is_zero_ether_addr(&addr))
> continue;
>
> /* add address to the hardware */
> if (*dev->dev_ops->mac_addr_add &&
> (dev->data->mac_pool_sel[i] & (1ULL << pool)))
> (*dev->dev_ops->mac_addr_add)(dev, &addr, i,
pool);
> else {
> RTE_PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("port %d: MAC address array
not supported\n",
> port_id);
> /* exit the loop but not return an error */
> break;
> }
> }
>
> dev->data->mac_addrs[0] is filled with a HW MAC address (by default) when
a device is initialized. But there’s no flag setting for
dev->data->mac_pool_sel[0].
> As the value of “(dev->data->mac_pool_sel[i] & (1ULL << pool)) “ becomes
0 for i=0, the replay logic will be stopped without processing the rest of MAC
addresses in dev->data->mac_addrs[] list.
> Shouldn’t ‘break’ statement be replaced with ‘continue’ to process other
MACs in the list?
Hi Steve,
Looks like you are right. The commit that pool check added (4bdefaad) says:
"
Fix bug in rte_eth_dev_config_restore function, which will restore all
MAC address to default pool.
"
So intention looks like not stop adding mac_addr loop if mac is not in
pool, but instead not adding a mac address if it is not part of pool.
But pool check seems added later, and initial "break" is added for
"dev_ops->mac_addr_add" check.
Logic can be:
if (dev_ops->mac_addr_add)
if (mac in pool)
dev_ops->mac_addr_add()
else
continue
else
break
But of course, instead of checking the dev_ops in a loop for same
device, it makes more sense to remove it out of loop.
Are you planning to send a patch for this issue?
It is easier to discuss code based on patches..
>
> Any feedback would be appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
