From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
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 <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  4 May 2022 19:48:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-pg1-f176.google.com with SMTP id i62so1731326pgd.6
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; 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 <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: Subendu Santra <subendu@arista.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
 hemant.agrawal@nxp.com, maryam.tahhan@intel.com, reshma.pattan@intel.com,
 Sriram Rajagopalan <sriramr@arista.com>
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 <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org

On Tue, 03 May 2022 10:47:58 +0200
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> 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.