From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F3F7A0547; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 17:45:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032A7410DD; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 17:45:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from linux.microsoft.com (linux.microsoft.com [13.77.154.182]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD5840040; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 17:45:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix, from userid 1086) id 3516220B6C50; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 08:45:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com 3516220B6C50 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com; s=default; t=1624549524; bh=STh+aMioI2EP1quqGn29U6fpJh0GZIxZ1W55IeuR5CE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=a+WqE6qBO07Wrb7jaKyFai7s0wtm+Wc7YosT4TUh3XcJLgFbnGz2BtuGs+ctDuyMD xyHk303H0bynTMJx157Y/a1f3UnlM+eIif1akNxyhPg8JsekGlvcTJKAow0FAdheQ2 lkkggeU+P1tAUQ4SdwyMtGIQRYZ8pXovYgQOdH2M= Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 08:45:24 -0700 From: Tyler Retzlaff To: Jie Zhou Cc: Dmitry Kozlyuk , dev@dpdk.org, xiaoyun.li@intel.com, roretzla@microsoft.com, talshn@nvidia.com, pallavi.kadam@intel.com, thomas@monjalon.net, bruce.richardson@intel.com, ferruh.yigit@intel.com, konstantin.ananyev@intel.com, stable@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20210624154524.GA22718@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> References: <1620236174-10676-1-git-send-email-jizh@linux.microsoft.com> <1620241931-28435-1-git-send-email-jizh@linux.microsoft.com> <1620241931-28435-10-git-send-email-jizh@linux.microsoft.com> <20210621023053.07b8a425@sovereign> <20210623212632.GD20289@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210623212632.GD20289@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v13 09/10] app/testpmd: fix unused function warnings X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 02:26:32PM -0700, Jie Zhou wrote: > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 02:30:53AM +0300, Dmitry Kozlyuk wrote: > > - > > void > > fdir_set_flex_mask(portid_t port_id, struct rte_eth_fdir_flex_mask *cfg) > > { > > diff --git a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h > > index d61a055bdd..a40ee902e8 100644 > > --- a/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h > > +++ b/app/test-pmd/testpmd.h > > @@ -917,9 +917,7 @@ int all_ports_stopped(void); > > int port_is_stopped(portid_t port_id); > > int port_is_started(portid_t port_id); > > void pmd_test_exit(void); > > -#if defined(RTE_NET_I40E) || defined(RTE_NET_IXGBE) > > void fdir_get_infos(portid_t port_id); > > -#endif > > void fdir_set_flex_mask(portid_t port_id, > > struct rte_eth_fdir_flex_mask *cfg); > > void fdir_set_flex_payload(portid_t port_id, > > Hi Dmitry, I agree that should avoid the #ifdef as much as possible. But in this case, I am not quite sure if I followed your comment correctly. Someone originally introduced these i40e and ixgbe related fdir functions (print_fdir_mask, print_fdir_flex_payload, print_fdir_flex_mask, print_fdir_flow_type, get_fdir_info, fdir_get_infos) into testpmd with adding the #if defined(RTE_NET_I40E) || defined(RTE_NET_IXGBE) for 4 out of 6 functions and left 2 of them outside the #ifdef which caused compilation "unused function" warning. What I did here is just move the starting point of #ifdef to also include those 2 missed functions (print_fdir_mask and print_fdir_flex_payload). IMO the original author would be in better place to reducing the unneccary #ifdef in a proper way. i think i have to agree with jie here. there are limits to how many defects we should have to correct which are unrelated change. if this is critical i think it would be best if the maintainer provide a patch cleaning up the code they own. let's not hold this patch up over it because of it being a broad change we lose a lot of time rebasing where either the maintainer or author could follow up with a narrow change to correct this.