On 2/3/2017 6:50 AM, Lu, Wenzhuo wrote: > 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?
Yes they are same. But there is a intention to unlink "eth_drv->pci_drv", to better support non pci devices, so instead of a PMD directly accessing name through this link, I believe it is better to use rte_drier->name, which is more generic. > > >> 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 >>> >
