On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote:
> 31/05/2017 16:46, Ferruh Yigit: > > On 5/31/2017 3:27 PM, Ajit Khaparde wrote: > > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com > > > <mailto: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> > > > > <mailto: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? > > > > Agreed that this may require effort, but I believe we should not use PMD > > specific APIs as much as possible, and stick to ethdev abstraction layer. > > > > PMD specific API kills the portability, and only should be used to > > benefit from features that are available only for that PMD. > > > > This was my concern to start implementing more thing in PMD layer, like > > getting tx_drop stats.. > > Yes I agree the specific statistics should be added in xstats. > And I am already working on that. Thanks
