On 2/1/2017 6:10 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > > >> -----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)?
Not sure about the effort it requires, but I second that. > Konstantin > >> >>> Konstantin >>> >
