23/08/2017 23:27, David Harton (dharton): > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > > 23/08/2017 14:18, David Harton (dharton): > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > > > > 23/08/2017 04:55, David Harton: > > > > > rte_eth_stats_get() unconditonally would set rx_nombuf even if the > > > > > device was setting the value. A check has been added in > > > > > rte_eth_stats_get() to leave the device value in-tact when non-zero. > > > > > > > > If we get this counter from stats->rx_nombuf, why keeping > > > > dev->data->rx_mbuf_alloc_failed ? > > > > We could rework other PMDs to not use this global variable. > > > > It is inconsistent to use it for some PMDs but not all. > > > > And it seems not used outside of PMDs. > > > > > > Are you also asking to remove dev->data->rx_mbuf_alloc_failed as well > > since we will have an ABI breakage anyway? > > > > Not asking, just giving my thought :) > > I did some more digging. For this count it looks like some devices: > - have their own internal version > - have a count shared with the pf > - rely on this field to maintain the count > - don't count this failure at all :( > > With that said I'd like to keep with the requested changes. > > Thoughts?
I don't see how it is a problem for removing dev->data->rx_mbuf_alloc_failed. If this field is used, we just have to replace it by a PMD internal variable. Isn't it?
