On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote:
> On 5/31/2017 3:12 AM, Ajit Khaparde wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com > > <mailto:ferruh.yi...@intel.com>> wrote: > > > > > +int rte_pmd_bnxt_get_tx_drop_count(uint8_t port, uint64_t *count) > > > +{ > > > + struct rte_eth_dev *dev; > > > + struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info; > > > + struct bnxt *bp; > > > + > > > + dev = &rte_eth_devices[port]; > > > + rte_eth_dev_info_get(port, &dev_info); > > > + bp = (struct bnxt *)dev->data->dev_private; > > > + > > > + return bnxt_hwrm_func_qstats_tx_drop(bp, 0xffff, count); > > > +} > > > > This function is not to get VF stats from PF. As far as I can see > this > > just gets queue stats, does this really needs to be PMD specific API, > > isn't this something generic? > > > > > > Yes. That is right. It returns a count of number of packets which were > > not transmitted > > because it did not pass the MAC/VLAN spoof check. > > It does not > > necessarily mean "failure to transmit" and so I don't think it is right > > to map it to oerrors. > > So in the current form I don't see a way to make a generic function out > > of it. > > I see, this is implemented because there is no place in basic stats to > put tx_drop_pkts. > > Can xstats be used to get this value? Can new .xstats_get_by_id help here? > May be we could. Do we have time for that?
