From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58D45A0526; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:37:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED18F1BFFF; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:37:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pg1-f193.google.com (mail-pg1-f193.google.com [209.85.215.193]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF3ED1BFFE for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:37:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pg1-f193.google.com with SMTP id d4so12266358pgk.4 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 10:37:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+zQit/c+tf3HHui7rBE0pZR7bZXvlPKDzQgLmtx/FJ4=; b=Gr7QounG5hW4lYbjD+z+t18GCsEs4/ojmunNe3AS3gobh+q2iXX2uJsedPBThZwRM1 A7ozingbQshiTNgieonj5bjAqGoVSCgdjM3EvqutkLqTnWw7VPcleCrO/Gr6qijkYuAn u0IMZjeGcLZ1Ik5rul7hpx64M+O2vThVXsw6jMqxmBXPIliVw36rVHzgh/ScO5XyxUli ELAF5Ga8pgkNgk4iXsFAMdDHJ0vsurAVNQyNeiJvVluPE5Dx38cxaQcQ1lna7n6v/t4h vBFfKodnpcWn73LNoQTHZrpexnyszQMBnQgJFH+LR0iWOrOco5DTNgH/pEo3518bDMyK /fBg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+zQit/c+tf3HHui7rBE0pZR7bZXvlPKDzQgLmtx/FJ4=; b=NEVRc7peOFVfHPE0rLlLZhMdrClN9tG1a6ffps5qM7DZx9qnBBsXVom68KkJEu1opR 52uTJy9WCTmIv2rkrsUG1+Gjqeai6z5z80jjtmLzLS0dXhk0l7LNuRnsrU/S17gAZQSw SSDUE8q+/M8db/ERcI1VWEzPDGSuPGTmDT0nB+lpPbUfUpsHD+jHA9iXiY+wApYnW4w6 c3Qeoz5bmt5Lq+vVA0KdsIMF3wQPM7l8bcdj6K9t9OGDbNYpfD+jWSxwmNaCoSpAJB0J ZTlRqNthgcjWsG+1gS7XcxyjJWLciCLsOdWEXL+izNr6EusF15tOHQFOVQolOpjgoHTu 8BPQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530neodFNvtQxDpenfyhz/Htj+JauSpAoZaiEMrMk1/j4XmwNnMZ vd0yCraiswDXCC7Po/4j3ALiGw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzZluNAcp9Yrf85rHHb9iKrUOoh1tH1NtDkixIrpXNkmmutjUWm+ZuiyofuUo9NMYfkJ5E4sQ== X-Received: by 2002:a63:2223:: with SMTP id i35mr24341252pgi.64.1595353048706; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 10:37:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.lan (204-195-22-127.wavecable.com. [204.195.22.127]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g10sm21127252pfr.164.2020.07.21.10.37.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 21 Jul 2020 10:37:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 10:37:19 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: maryam.tahhan@intel.com, reshma.pattan@intel.com, hemant.agrawal@nxp.com, dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20200721103719.00a1b402@hermes.lan> In-Reply-To: <3970844.9fo0LYaLg5@thomas> References: <20200506193741.24117-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <9275553.NR17kIY6SJ@thomas> <20200721100521.62c556e7@hermes.lan> <3970844.9fo0LYaLg5@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/7] app/proc-info: provide way to request info on owned ports 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:08:57 +0200 Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 21/07/2020 19:05, Stephen Hemminger: > > On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 17:01:00 +0200 > > Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 15/07/2020 23:22, Stephen Hemminger: > > > > + /* If no port mask was specified, one will be provided */ > > > > > > Would be nice to help the user by printing a port mask > > > of owned and unowned ports. > > > > Not needed, since each display already has the port # > > By default, owned ports are not displayed at all. > How are we supposed to find them? You have to pass it in portmask. The alternative would be to show all ports and mark those that are owned. The ownership model API does not support a way to ask for either "tell me which other port owns port X" or "iterate over all the ports owned by Y". The problem is that the owner id is generic and stored inside the PMD. The root cause is that the original design of port ownership was targeting a more general use case that was never used. I would have been happier with a simpler parent port id index in ethdev instead.