Hi, jinging
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wu, Jingjing
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 10:59 AM
> To: Zhao1, Wei <wei.zh...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Zhao1, Wei <wei.zh...@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/3] net/i40e: fix clear xstats bug in vf
> port
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Wei Zhao
> > Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 2:18 PM
> > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Zhao1, Wei <wei.zh...@intel.com>
> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/3] net/i40e: fix clear xstats bug in
> > vf port
> >
> > There is a bug in vf clear xstats command, it do not record the
> > statics data in offset struct member.So, vf need to keep record of
> > xstats data from pf and update the statics according to offset.
> >
> > Fixes: da61cd0849766 ("i40evf: add extended stats")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Zhao <wei.zh...@intel.com>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> >
> > fix patch log check warning.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > changes in v3:
> >
> > remove nic_stats_display protect to a new patch
> > ---
> > drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c | 64
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c
> > b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c
> > index 38c3adc..806ff9e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c
> > @@ -888,16 +888,74 @@ i40evf_update_stats(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> > struct i40e_eth_stats **pstats)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static void
> > +i40evf_stat_update_48(uint64_t *offset,
> > + uint64_t *stat)
> > +{
> > + if (*stat >= *offset)
> > + *stat = *stat - *offset;
> > + else
> > + *stat = (uint64_t)((*stat +
> > + ((uint64_t)1 << I40E_48_BIT_WIDTH)) - *offset);
> > +
> > + *stat &= I40E_48_BIT_MASK;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void
> > +i40evf_stat_update_32(uint64_t *offset,
> > + uint64_t *stat)
> > +{
> > + if (*stat >= *offset)
> > + *stat = (uint64_t)(*stat - *offset);
> > + else
> > + *stat = (uint64_t)((*stat +
> > + ((uint64_t)1 << I40E_32_BIT_WIDTH)) - *offset); }
>
> The type of count is 64 bits. Is that correct to use 1 << I40E_32_BIT_WIDTH?
No, this is because the register data is 32 bit width, although we store it use
64 bit in memory.
You can see another function i40e_update_vsi_stats().
>
> > +
> > +static void
> > +i40evf_update_vsi_stats(struct i40e_vsi *vsi,
> > + struct i40e_eth_stats *nes)
> > +{
> > + struct i40e_eth_stats *oes = &vsi->eth_stats_offset;
> > +
> > + i40evf_stat_update_48(&oes->rx_bytes,
> > + &nes->rx_bytes);
> > + i40evf_stat_update_48(&oes->rx_unicast,
> > + &nes->rx_unicast);
> > + i40evf_stat_update_48(&oes->rx_multicast,
> > + &nes->rx_multicast);
> > + i40evf_stat_update_48(&oes->rx_broadcast,
> > + &nes->rx_broadcast);
> > + i40evf_stat_update_32(&oes->rx_discards,
> > + &nes->rx_discards);
> > + i40evf_stat_update_32(&oes->rx_unknown_protocol,
> > + &nes->rx_unknown_protocol);
> > + i40evf_stat_update_48(&oes->tx_bytes,
> > + &nes->tx_bytes);
> > + i40evf_stat_update_48(&oes->tx_unicast,
> > + &nes->tx_unicast);
> > + i40evf_stat_update_48(&oes->tx_multicast,
> > + &nes->tx_multicast);
> > + i40evf_stat_update_48(&oes->tx_broadcast,
> > + &nes->tx_broadcast);
> > + i40evf_stat_update_32(&oes->tx_errors, &nes->tx_errors);
> > + i40evf_stat_update_32(&oes->tx_discards, &nes->tx_discards); }
> > +
> > static int
> > i40evf_get_statistics(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, struct rte_eth_stats *stats)
> {
> > int ret;
> > struct i40e_eth_stats *pstats = NULL;
> > + struct i40e_vf *vf = I40EVF_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_VF(dev->data-
> > >dev_private);
> > + struct i40e_vsi *vsi = &vf->vsi;
> >
> > ret = i40evf_update_stats(dev, &pstats);
> > if (ret != 0)
> > return 0;
> >
> > + i40evf_update_vsi_stats(vsi, pstats);
> > +
>
> It looks like, with this change, the static gotten by user the incensement
> from
> the last query?
> If so, I don't think it is our expected.
>
This change only reset after clear command, so the data increase after the
reset command.
> The names of functions are similar. Could you help to refine the code?
> For example, merge i40evf_dev_stats_get and i40evf_get_statistics to be
> one function.
> Rename i40evf_update_stats like i40evf_query_stats, and chang
> i40evf_update_vsi_stats To be i40evf_update_stats? I think it would be
> clearer, what do you think?
Ok, I wiil change the name in later version
>
> Thanks
> Jingjing
