Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] ethdev: add return code to rte_eth_stats_reset()

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On 9/20/2017 3:01 PM, David Harton (dharton) wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yigit@intel.com]
>>
>> On 9/1/2017 3:26 AM, David Harton wrote:
>>> Some devices do not support reset of eth stats.  An application may
>>> need to know not to clear shadow stats if the device cannot.
>>>
>>> rte_eth_stats_reset is updated to provide a return code to share
>>> whether the device supports reset or not.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Harton <dharton@cisco.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> v5:
>>> * squashed doc patch
>>> * moved rel_note change from ABI to API section
>>>
>>> v4:
>>> * commented return values
>>>
>>> v3:
>>> * overcame noob errors and figured out patch challenged
>>>
>>> v2:
>>> * fixed soft tab issue inserted while moving changes
>>>
>>>  doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_11.rst | 13 +++++++++++++
>>>  lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c          |  8 +++++---
>>>  lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h          |  6 +++++-
>>>  3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_11.rst
>>> b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_11.rst
>>> index 22df4fd..6282667 100644
>>> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_11.rst
>>> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_17_11.rst
>>> @@ -110,6 +110,19 @@ API Changes
>>>     Also, make sure to start the actual text at the margin.
>>>     =========================================================
>>>
>>> +* **Modified the return type of rte_eth_stats_reset.**
>>> +
>>> +  Changed return type of ``rte_eth_stats_reset`` from ``void`` to
>>> + ``int``  so the caller may know whether a device supports the
>>> + operation or not  and if the operation was carried out.
>>> +
>>
>>> +* **Modified the vlan_offload_set_t function prototype in the ethdev
>>> +library.**
>>> +
>>> +  Changed the function prototype of ``vlan_offload_set_t``.  The
>>> + return value  has been changed from ``void`` to ``int`` so the
>>> + caller to knows whether  the backing device supports the operation
>>> + or if the operation was  successfully performed.
>>> +
>>
>> Is this addition to the document related to this patch?
> 
> Good catch.  No. :(
> 
> I must have mishandled the rebase I did to update this patch.  V6 coming.  
> Would be great if you could re-ACK afterwards so this one can move.

I think you can carry the previous Ack for this case. Since main part of
the patch that acked will not be changed...

> 
> Thanks,
> Dave

<...>