Re: [PATCH] app/procinfo: add device private info dump

["Min Hu (Connor)" <humin29@huawei.com>]

Hi,

在 2022/2/20 16:56, Thomas Monjalon 写道:
> 20/02/2022 02:04, Stephen Hemminger:
>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 09:59:16 +0800
>> "Min Hu (Connor)" <humin29@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +static void
>>> +show_port_private_info(void)
>>> +{
>>> +	int i;
>>> +
>>> +	snprintf(bdr_str, MAX_STRING_LEN, " show - Port PMD Private ");
>>> +	STATS_BDR_STR(10, bdr_str);
>>> +
>>> +	for (i = 0; i < RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS; i++) {
>>> +		/* Skip if port is not in mask */
>>> +		if ((enabled_port_mask & (1ul << i)) == 0)
>>> +			continue;
>>> +
>>> +		/* Skip if port is unused */
>>> +		if (!rte_eth_dev_is_valid_port(i))
>>> +			continue;
>>
>> Maybe use RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(i) here?
>>
>> Procinfo is somewhat inconsistent, some code uses, and some does not.
>> The difference is that FOREACH skips ports that are "owned" i.e
>> associated with another port.
> 
> Yes RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV is for general usage,
> you get only the ports you are supposed to manage.
> 
>> There probably should be a clear policy in the comments about
>> how this command should handle ports.  My preference would be
>> that it shows all valid ports, all the time since this is a diagnostic
>> command used to debug misconfiguration.
>>
>> There is RTE_ETH_FOREACH_VALID_DEV but it is marked internal?
> 
> Yes, you get it right, RTE_ETH_FOREACH_VALID_DEV gets all ports
> and that should be used only internally or for debugging.
> If we expose it for debugging purpose, there is a risk of confusion.
> The goal was to "force" applications to adopt good behaviour,
> using RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV.
Agree with using RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV, v2 has been sent out.

> It means RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS must be used for debugging.
> Is it a good decision?
> 
> 
> .
>