Hi Stephen,

Could you please help us understand the rationale behind showing just the
last non-owned port in case the port mask was not specified?
I really appreciate your help in this regard.

Regards,
Subendu.



On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 11:04 AM Subendu Santra <subendu@arista.com> wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
>
> We were going through the patch set:
> https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20200715212228.28010-7-stephen@networkplumber.org/
> and hoping to get clarification on the behaviour if post mask is not
> specified in the input to `dpdk-proc-info` tool.
>
> Specifically, In PATCH v3 6/7, we see this:
>
> +	/* If no port mask was specified, one will be provided */
> +	if (enabled_port_mask == 0) {
> +		RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(i) {
> +			enabled_port_mask |= 1u << i;
>
>
> However, in PATCH v4 8/8, we see this:
>
> +	/* If no port mask was specified, then show non-owned ports */
> +	if (enabled_port_mask == 0) {
> +		RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(i)
> +			enabled_port_mask = 1ul << i;
> +	}
>
>
> Was there any specific reason to show just the last non-owned port in case
> the port mask was not specified?
> Should we show all non-owned ports in case the user doesn’t specify any
> port mask?
>
> Regards,
> Subendu.
>
>
>
>