Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix ixgbe private API calling

["Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>]

Hi Ferruh,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yigit, Ferruh
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 3:27 PM
> To: Iremonger, Bernard <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo
> <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix ixgbe
> private API calling
> 
> On 1/11/2017 3:20 PM, Iremonger, Bernard wrote:
> > Hi Wenzhuo,
> >
> > <snip>
> >>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix ixgbe private API
> >>> calling
> >>>
> >>> Some ixgbe private APIs are added to expose ixgbe specific functions.
> >>> When they're used by testpmd, there's no check for if the NICs are
> ixgbe.
> >>> Other NICs also have chance to  call these APIs.
> >>> This patch add the check and the feedback print.
> >>
> >> I am not sure that testpmd is the right place to do this.
> >> The rte_pmd_ixgbe_* functions are public API's which can be called by
> >> other applications.
> >> The checks should be in the rte_pmd_ixgbe_* API's
> >
> > It is useful to handle the return code -ENOTSUP in testpmd.
> >
> 
> Makes sense, and I think it is good idea to add them in your patch, since it
> introduces returning -ENOTSUP, would you mind sending a new version of
> your patch with this update?
> So we can drop this patch completely.
> 
> Thanks,
> ferruh
>
I don't think this patch should be dropped.
Testpmd is already handling -EINVAL and -ENODEV.
It makes sense for it to handle -ENOTSUP for the cases in the patch.

Regards,

Bernard.