From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87C97A04FF; Wed, 4 May 2022 19:48:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DFE540C35; Wed, 4 May 2022 19:48:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pg1-f176.google.com (mail-pg1-f176.google.com [209.85.215.176]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 369AF4069F for ; Wed, 4 May 2022 19:48:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pg1-f176.google.com with SMTP id i62so1731326pgd.6 for ; Wed, 04 May 2022 10:48:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=y6tqEZSjZ60HAglGu+TWtfdBD8smEUHXoeYZKgQXzks=; b=3sct8qM7axYNtb7YAko98+rSIiZ5S5pysLX1kitiHKK57gN1zkA6GaPuwcuf4JI3ku Dd2iZ/TP2fq/biQU4bSWwVycLhQnUuHhvWvaFqVfaDTKCQQ5uqnHBDr55bNVllksZ4vE bBN3EhzCKo09Od9bv8tnsL58N7BJZU7138aVFzxOvIkwNwlTo20tSS5bZkODSaMEn+vm A8pQXLiZQB/Pykg/E9sv7tcScO1UfYK+592bebF7U8rVyemp+dQPVssYlYI+ioMWx2To JmbO841aR8p7lj3b67ewEThLDvvKwNyzP01S5oidf3T0KPBjO0reX/L1Mx2XNfnbdYcm IGDA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=y6tqEZSjZ60HAglGu+TWtfdBD8smEUHXoeYZKgQXzks=; b=us89xocWRiYyDPt5Nr7SIUW3kK7b4gmFQiKhsmw3Ah/hZ/Whoj0sqR7ZE8OJc4q7J8 Tj5EI2YoMHtANueqRGoDGOyyRKDvBcZdyEC7Q5mSfwbOYWLV0wL7/4d+/fDMGUVsw2xy q8UemIuUxKtPZ+F54+0LFRgDjhW3RwD+PIy5xiNCXkE1CyFedpomg91jPfsTDB+HOlUy zFoBIMMFjpvne41duLwUrlsacZCA6h2vNY90aA9lJq43PZoEEkVub/ufJUvAZLL8vyp2 5W/V4gFAgQzbuaJGTcXYKoziSdHu7DkydEHpQNkf7xM6jniQFnB6im+s+FIT2oD4HMaQ DKIA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531aXrt+8kNhEYpRCQC0qHdoFDdBWN/MJcjM4CZWnq6GM/+Bzd+s XEa3rEfX0RN6e0C3g/u7bwuxmw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw5JPLMsu4nVSXDjZxIiSekdq5OrpTD6Ik2984M+1h/wfLnpHiCD0as1AgG4KqPOtCTnoK52w== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:894:b0:4fe:25d7:f59e with SMTP id q20-20020a056a00089400b004fe25d7f59emr22177194pfj.58.1651686517150; Wed, 04 May 2022 10:48:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shemminger-XPS-13-9360 ([167.220.58.48]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n23-20020a17090a929700b001d7f3bb11d7sm3540489pjo.53.2022.05.04.10.48.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 04 May 2022 10:48:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 10:48:33 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: Subendu Santra , dev@dpdk.org, hemant.agrawal@nxp.com, maryam.tahhan@intel.com, reshma.pattan@intel.com, Sriram Rajagopalan Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/7] app/proc-info: provide way to request info on owned ports Message-ID: <20220504104833.5e021a12@shemminger-XPS-13-9360> In-Reply-To: <5574950.QJadu78ljV@thomas> References: <3710E2E2-5CCC-41F3-A12A-E8B6A884CC40@arista.com> <5574950.QJadu78ljV@thomas> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Tue, 03 May 2022 10:47:58 +0200 Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 24/04/2022 07:34, Subendu Santra: > > Hi Stephen, > >=20 > > We were going through the patch set: https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/2020071= 5212228.28010-7-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. > >=20 > > Specifically, In PATCH v3 6/7, we see this: > > + /* If no port mask was specified, one will be provided */ > > + if (enabled_port_mask =3D=3D 0) { > > + RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(i) { > > + enabled_port_mask |=3D 1u << i; > >=20 > > However, in PATCH v4 8/8, we see this: > > + /* If no port mask was specified, then show non-owned ports */ > > + if (enabled_port_mask =3D=3D 0) { > > + RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(i) > > + enabled_port_mask =3D 1ul << i; > > + } > >=20 > > Was there any specific reason to show just the last non-owned port in c= ase the port mask was not specified? > > Should we show all non-owned ports in case the user doesn=E2=80=99t spe= cify any port mask? =20 >=20 > It looks like a bug. It should be |=3D > Feel free to send a fix. >=20 >=20 Agree. Thats a bug. It would be good to have a "show all ports" flag to proc-info. To show all ports including owned.