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 ABA08A00C4; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 10:34:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 947B342847; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 10:32:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-wr1-f45.google.com (mail-wr1-f45.google.com [209.85.221.45]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D4F44003F for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 07:34:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr1-f45.google.com with SMTP id v12so9666689wrv.10 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2022 22:34:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arista.com; s=google; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:cc:to; bh=sEBbgl5XWAwFfcITxttWy+RngDYCxjs9XswOrjFrKd4=; b=aQ2JSZo06e9uCEjBMbF+oCFjr5FXN/BrOh+HCzG0uEA5kPmN+FJ3HnV5pn8wy0x55a xUgAIsXhTP1S+KWai2OplHMzNPv3GT0fE3eX4OdkC+wII6eiEAjFD1dcYxGwDZ5lgQhr n1x2W37AouJ93+QWeOMHRJVwG2HLIgOKkQPSLoB+6K2aygeOCyiP5SVO5zW8P01iJgO2 oSAy1Cz1JNC9JK6gytZBZ/+WjcBpKANfn5qA9upGDzw7uzSKKuKRKOxGY/Gs/GJMAdKY 03w/aAJtaXM0N4YSC98mimBGhaMK90LdyGcx3DpZxPD8u6f1EfeUicEvaOWiahh0fzLv Weww== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:cc:to; bh=sEBbgl5XWAwFfcITxttWy+RngDYCxjs9XswOrjFrKd4=; b=oShEx92OU6/ccwAXBm3f2AiAkz952NSKXRKcY3kv9nfck5+6ejxSFnF+5zzhdzQ5Jb IZ/oGKKVnPF0O77LnY3c0sek23N+VoVtKXmtL8jhshSXKKK+ZQrMS3cqH/pm0A7lBAdA 7tPREjrA4vP0tWqsEU+Ta2r3zWX22LykgvSkBrNCKQNuCBx2/Bgq3GNm9aCX/z+2Qf/l Zu6iKjBCZphboCteKU3O9LKtZIT8A/nB0gPyk1PkR2+5GdcZKP/NxXA33CHDC0uywBd4 kcJFHcY558XpaFkl3ac8U2WQTIi0oVH52kXKmki6+DsNKeFoPu244GvyybhxKh5lOSWJ jX9w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533GU6tUqaSUT2WWiRsFclJJzFiikGEqaSS7pNQvuJoFWzUgWoMx 9omeKCJ9TWo5bpszXDeWRJ77 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx5uxU0fsU3OkZcVej2t+ZnVBNIgU6ZTusTjMwzLWaSUrJhT7mCvlDGNohEMgKw2009lpSkiw== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5942:0:b0:207:9abd:792a with SMTP id e2-20020a5d5942000000b002079abd792amr9668871wri.118.1650778469201; Sat, 23 Apr 2022 22:34:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2402:e280:2179:39:444d:89af:1da8:ba8f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f14-20020a0560001a8e00b0020aaf034e59sm6988121wry.90.2022.04.23.22.34.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 23 Apr 2022 22:34:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Subendu Santra Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E27B24FC-407E-4C62-B08A-5CC243073082" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\)) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/7] app/proc-info: provide way to request info on owned ports Message-Id: <3710E2E2-5CCC-41F3-A12A-E8B6A884CC40@arista.com> Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 11:04:21 +0530 Cc: dev@dpdk.org, hemant.agrawal@nxp.com, maryam.tahhan@intel.com, reshma.pattan@intel.com, Sriram Rajagopalan To: stephen@networkplumber.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 10:32:34 +0200 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 --Apple-Mail=_E27B24FC-407E-4C62-B08A-5CC243073082 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Stephen, We were going through the patch set: = https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20200715212228.28010-7-stephen@networkplumber.o= rg/ and hoping to get clarification on the behaviour if post mask is not = specified in the input to `dpdk-proc-info` tool. 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; 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; + } Was there any specific reason to show just the last non-owned port in = case the port mask was not specified? Should we show all non-owned ports in case the user doesn=E2=80=99t = specify any port mask? Regards, Subendu. --Apple-Mail=_E27B24FC-407E-4C62-B08A-5CC243073082 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi = Stephen,

We were = going through the patch set: https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20200715212228.28010-7-stephen@netwo= rkplumber.org/ and hoping to get clarification on the behaviour if = post mask is not specified in the input to `dpdk-proc-info` = tool.

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;

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;
+	}

Was there any specific reason to show just the last non-owned = port in case the port mask was not specified?
Should we show all non-owned ports in case the user doesn=E2=80= =99t specify any port mask?

Regards,
Subendu.



= --Apple-Mail=_E27B24FC-407E-4C62-B08A-5CC243073082--