Hi Ferruh, > -----Original Message----- > From: Yigit, Ferruh > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 8:16 PM > To: Bie, Tiwei; Lu, Wenzhuo > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: clean up rte_eth_dev_info_get > > On 1/25/2017 5:24 AM, Tiwei Bie wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 01:13:32PM +0800, Lu, Wenzhuo wrote: > >> Hi Tiwei, > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Bie, Tiwei > >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:17 AM > >>> To: Lu, Wenzhuo > >>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org > >>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: clean up > >>> rte_eth_dev_info_get > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:39:22AM +0800, Wenzhuo Lu wrote: > >>>> 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; > >>>> > >>> > >>> The return value of is_ixgbe_pmd() is not boolean (actually I think > >>> it should be based on its name). If we omit the comparison with 0, > >>> the code looks weird. It looks like it'll return -ENOTSUP if the port's > >>> driver > is ixgbe PMD. > >> > >> Yes, it’s weird. But what makes it weird is not the missing comparison but > the function name. > >> Better changing it to ixgbe_pmd_check. How about it? > >> > > > > Yeah, I also prefer to change the helper function itself. But I'm not > > good at the naming. I'd like to hear others' opinion. :-) > > Agree that it looks wrong without 0 comparison. > > Helper function is checking if the given port is an ixgbe port or not, > unfortunately you need to this for PMD specific APIs. > So What about is_device_supported(), > > I agree it is better if it returns bool, and I also think it is better if it > gets the > rte_eth_dev as input parameter, validating port based on name is API internal > knowledge. > > Also instead of name comparison against fixed string, it can be eth_dev- > >driver->pci_drv.name against driver->name. This makes function more Thanks for your suggestion. But I don’t get your point here. For a specific device, should not the eth_dev->driver->pci_drv.name and the driver->name be the same?
> generic, and perhaps this helper function can be moved into ethdev layer, > later. For this function needs to get both eth_dev and rte_driver as argument. > > > > > > Best regards, > > Tiwei Bie > >
