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 DF824A0093; Tue, 3 May 2022 10:48:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8375E40E2D; Tue, 3 May 2022 10:48:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3531A40C35 for ; Tue, 3 May 2022 10:48:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A575C00D9; Tue, 3 May 2022 04:48:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 03 May 2022 04:48:02 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1651567682; x= 1651654082; bh=cw6JN3S2tcMesGHwPAVRkE1oRIR+s8jG3S42pYIZy24=; b=v 3G43/d0/QUPPGMqC8IsKHdt5ycdW23BmtYBQFF81hf6uwU9ErB5PTdkoaHzbUXA9 5YpOaITR9f2QCakw1wzTt0TrMpNS99hTzTA8EbvJgADleWgc3R4MQoS84dbhUb64 whrziSGQ37j5WIWP3tqr9hWGlKhwZ/3N3GIGHP25IdQxTeWf1Ixd+LXQTHZOQnxv 8lpZU0D8+1LLoAmw9uyUmbjICDL23g77n/Dm9Ge5LJM7O/c1AGITZVNxHmfp5rCT rVfxoQZ2+PaSkCj2vtDZxmviq0BMEoRwFMadkVAMVikf3sO6B85uMswX8jQWGtZD KQLoYJG9nOH/xCJiYAaAA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1651567682; x=1651654082; bh=cw6JN3S2tcMes GHwPAVRkE1oRIR+s8jG3S42pYIZy24=; b=vA4Zch61Y7Qs0E+2vXUlnvBDCsB+M 1doup36oyPk2wR7tg+2UzhAKGicMKDCzanXehytKtS9sw445FKVQJmqPAz5ucM0h 9WvFyyC+elBYXDbQVKRZi/W/PpsJwQGY4QuKitoVCXqDciwkHMolOpLYklpFFr+M FQTBoCHUXJx/Ic33YY4+5fQSM1OczJfi+DMezSnN/V/UnhvmQ7E1Hkx3MjIdfm3Y 8QVjqFtVruHW8cv1RjP9OMwbNllco5WPGUMkbhXmXncOugHQtG5Cpf91vQqOjMxg BJ0iSA+PuXrRaERy7nhBtxmgaRaESuwx+g9HtD/400N02D+OsW8EExhVw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrvdejgddtkecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvfevufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtqhertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepffdtuefhhedvkeelleevffdvlefhleehvdegtddvvdduueeivedt gfejvddugeefnecuffhomhgrihhnpeguphgukhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiii gvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhn rdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 3 May 2022 04:48:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Subendu Santra Cc: stephen@networkplumber.org, dev@dpdk.org, hemant.agrawal@nxp.com, maryam.tahhan@intel.com, reshma.pattan@intel.com, Sriram Rajagopalan Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/7] app/proc-info: provide way to request info on owned ports Date: Tue, 03 May 2022 10:47:58 +0200 Message-ID: <5574950.QJadu78ljV@thomas> In-Reply-To: <3710E2E2-5CCC-41F3-A12A-E8B6A884CC40@arista.com> References: <3710E2E2-5CCC-41F3-A12A-E8B6A884CC40@arista.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 24/04/2022 07:34, Subendu Santra: > Hi Stephen, >=20 > We were going through the patch set: https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/202007152= 12228.28010-7-stephen@networkplumber.org/ and hoping to get clarification o= n the behaviour if post mask is not specified in the input to `dpdk-proc-in= fo` tool. >=20 > Specifically, In PATCH v3 6/7, we see this: > + /* If no port mask was specified, one will be provided */ > + if (enabled_port_mask =3D=3D 0) { > + RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(i) { > + enabled_port_mask |=3D 1u << i; >=20 > However, in PATCH v4 8/8, we see this: > + /* If no port mask was specified, then show non-owned ports */ > + if (enabled_port_mask =3D=3D 0) { > + RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(i) > + enabled_port_mask =3D 1ul << i; > + } >=20 > Was there any specific reason to show just the last non-owned port in cas= e the port mask was not specified? > Should we show all non-owned ports in case the user doesn=E2=80=99t speci= fy any port mask? It looks like a bug. It should be |=3D =46eel free to send a fix.