> -----Original Message----- > From: Yigit, Ferruh > Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 5:40 PM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo > <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: clean up rte_eth_dev_info_get > > On 2/1/2017 4:24 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > Hi Wenzhuo, > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Wenzhuo Lu > >> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 2:39 AM > >> To: dev@dpdk.org > >> Cc: Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com> > >> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: clean up rte_eth_dev_info_get > >> > >> It'not appropriate to call rte_eth_dev_info_get in PMD, > >> as rte_eth_dev_info_get need to get info from PMD. > >> Remove rte_eth_dev_info_get from PMD code and get the > >> info directly. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo...@intel.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c | 144 > >> ++++++++++++++++++--------------------- > >> 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c > >> b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c > >> index 64ce55a..f14a68b 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c > >> +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c > >> @@ -4401,17 +4401,17 @@ static int > >> ixgbevf_dev_xstats_get_names(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev, > >> int rar_entry; > >> uint8_t *new_mac = (uint8_t *)(mac_addr); > >> struct rte_eth_dev *dev; > >> - struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info; > >> + struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev; > >> > >> RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port, -ENODEV); > >> > >> dev = &rte_eth_devices[port]; > >> - rte_eth_dev_info_get(port, &dev_info); > >> + pci_dev = IXGBE_DEV_TO_PCI(dev); > >> > >> - if (is_ixgbe_pmd(dev_info.driver_name) != 0) > >> + if (is_ixgbe_pmd(dev->data->drv_name)) > >> return -ENOTSUP; > > > > I wonder why do we need now that it is really an ixgbe device all over the > > place? > > This device specific API, so it is missing merits of abstraction layer, > application can these APIs with any port_id, API should be protected for it.
Ah ok, my bad - didn't realize from the patch that it affects only device specific API :) Would It be too much hassle to move these functions into a separate file (rte_ixgbe_pmd.c or so)? Konstantin > > > Konstantin > >
