From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5C602C2F for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 19:19:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72D9A21D0A; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 13:19:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 11 Dec 2018 13:19:58 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=VS1P64+Q+48tZ+Qd2nMrP8rSlzcU8EAglLkHFw+Y+Xs=; b=BAmWmLQ1zwpM rlJ7OIWGlr77eStX75W2hdtjkPaShf+eky6gkwJGMspAo5f2ws9WyBXYWWRluAbT b5AVyYlJ3WhLsXVLj/u8+yHwgVqygZjaEEC1OJMZME1j3qNOqqUq7lKZgbBPd/kU +aCsx3E7zcdjcJzmLHzHMrgZCkHuFz4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=VS1P64+Q+48tZ+Qd2nMrP8rSlzcU8EAglLkHFw+Y+ Xs=; b=M2Y8BfDhXNNd+a1OsdvtX50Diqeg6kGZ9tS+0u/UW02SkkPZsmMtZ+N7d onrurbl7lzBVXYtDcLmsAmoriFbOFABS1m9OWJM41+ZqGcxvpnRJKa+VZZCdpp+K tTPfRhU3xmFY6mM6fq+7L4SUe9d+vxKvhUdB3k89A7/wvQrp0dDmpBLb/0ZWTRUu NLhJC1jNt477edfhpENq+ST9Bpl8C+woHsCIubhxlDBJGy2HGCzLDJeHlTjdUg0v sTLSt7SWJM/ivOOZyv/eWe6QBh4jYh4SKaYbmwmL5faRqmvmxyaIrOMtYv8jR84h AenQ0x4Bw2zpvC8D4156uvmUdyF1g== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtkedrudegjedgudduvdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfhuthenuceurghilhhouhhtmecu fedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvufffkf gjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgrshcuofhonhhjrghlohhn uceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvd dtfedrudekgeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgr lhhonhdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7979F102E0; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 13:19:57 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: arybchenko@solarflare.com, dev@dpdk.org Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 19:19:52 +0100 Message-ID: <1653320.uaj56YXoz4@xps> In-Reply-To: <3b5368bf-400d-66e0-d6a8-19bdb33351dc@intel.com> References: <20181130002716.27325-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <3b5368bf-400d-66e0-d6a8-19bdb33351dc@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add siblings iterator X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 18:19:59 -0000 11/12/2018 17:31, Ferruh Yigit: > On 11/30/2018 12:27 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > If multiple ports share the same hardware device (rte_device), > > they are siblings and can be found thanks to the new function > > and loop macro. > > > > The ownership is not checked because siblings may have > > different owners. > > Looks good on its own, but I think now we require an implementation of any new > API, so it can be good to have: > - a sample implementation of this new API and the macro > - an unit test for the API and the macro Yes sure. I should have added "RFC" in the title. v2 will have some usage of this API. About the unit test, I'm really not sure whether we should test the ehtdev API in test/test/ or just inside testpmd. We used to implement ethdev tests only in testpmd. Opinions?