Hi Konstantin, > -----Original Message----- > From: Ananyev, Konstantin > Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 9:50 AM > To: Iremonger, Bernard <bernard.iremon...@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh > <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; > dev@dpdk.org > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: clean up rte_eth_dev_info_get > > Hi Bernard, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Iremonger, Bernard > > Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 9:21 AM > > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh > > <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; > > dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: clean up > > rte_eth_dev_info_get > > > > Hi Konstantin, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ananyev, > > > Konstantin > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 6:10 PM > > > To: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo > > > <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: clean up > > > rte_eth_dev_info_get > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----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 > > > > > > > All the device specific API functions are prefixed with rte_pmd_ixgbe > > That's ok. > > > > so I don't think a separate file is necessary. > > So far I didn't say it is necessary. > Though I think it would be good to group these functions in a separate file to > help avoid confusion (as happened to me) and keep ixgbe_ethdev.c smaller > and cleaner. > Again would be easier to maintain things in future, when more folks will > come up with some extensions for it. > That's why I am asking: would it be a lot of work to do? > It is probably worth doing it now, while we have this API relatively small. > Konstantin > I would need to investigate what is involved in moving the rte_pmd_ixgbe_* functions to a separate file. They may be using some of the static functions and data in the ixgbe_ethdev.c file which could be a problem. The rte_pmd_ixgbe_* functions are considered an "interim solution" until a "generic solution" is agreed. It might be best to postpone this work until the "generic solution" is agreed.
Regards, Bernard.
