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 9677AA0A0A; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 20:55:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C67440683; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 20:55:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99A2E4067B for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 20:55:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2805B1328; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 15:55:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 23 Mar 2021 15:55:53 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm3; bh= D0Pa2A4M8zJv/N7RxLtrKJUx4ML2xkfbpRCawzNG1qk=; b=FQ181JFJYRzujItN iMH/lhbsYuFSY6Gin0W+aTcjEf3yF3XafOFk1semgzsnK9pMZN02At8X6P479/Bj dfPuojBJhP/8D98qelhvdtYRLuBLtZDWqUN1FhY4odEejxidw9dULcb3fQZ2KhZj wrnmZNBvbFaWGiPBHPwkwBNRQqS3OAgmDBFfh2s6/wlFx9RMrgpJqZeFc2ArEh4m 4+9tXjN6o5/yRwqDN8eLH327PRkQ/xLGL+7IsvW6xYaE5z82IWXJyRLEfIBe5d5h tn/Vz4J3LSGzuaFD6gxqNV6JP8zLObty9OvM26YsZU6JA0TLU6RY8MUt03bLk1Zk pKEETg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=D0Pa2A4M8zJv/N7RxLtrKJUx4ML2xkfbpRCawzNG1 qk=; b=i5ey0g9sREN8AyypjtNM6HTv05lnQlTP6Bgj3l6g/4Ef/JN+LLmNjCx31 UuRHxKHs5OW6lchTyK68ogJW/v3MpxXUSJkOXUzt+uvd/NOSoABwjr7wmCUfDVC4 mv24FRBCgcoccPppTPFFiVQIeexAQ+iTkmpRiV546vXCcAX6skRTiwA0OxB1Cw1Z vt2gykDvqQ/zMmySenFwVicCO2JUKvKIb8JwZYcdVu226PoTfrZJ3Dqpm/AvD8Et Y4MwDoyYcwah0ECtNps+jQpvrb0j6ER95BJg2+c8LUb894rn0ynQ29lb43T/UCat q2T+5w8LzSMz8xRuazS1nj40v96bA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudegiedgudefvdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdej ueeiiedvffegheenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrh fuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgr lhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9FDF4240423; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 15:55:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "P, Venkata Suresh Kumar" , "Dumitrescu, Cristian" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Khangar, Churchill" , "Jangra, Yogesh" Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 20:55:49 +0100 Message-ID: <5428359.QSTuVHgDrv@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <1616155326-2639-1-git-send-email-venkata.suresh.kumar.p@intel.com> <7787288.vlQI503CXK@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] port: add file descriptor SWX port 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 Sender: "dev" 23/03/2021 19:56, Dumitrescu, Cristian: > From: Thomas Monjalon > > 23/03/2021 19:07, P, Venkata Suresh Kumar: > > > Thanks a lot for reviewing the code and providing your comments. > > > > > > I have addressed below comments in V2 patch. > > > > OK thanks. > > > > What about the question about rte_trace? > > Opinions? > > Hi Thomas, > > All rte_swx_port ports are currently following this pattern, > so it makes sense to have this one do the same for now. > > I am not that familiar with the (relatively new) rte_trace mechanism, so I am not sure if it has any run-time performance (I am assuming that it doesn't). We will take the AR to take a look at rte_trace and come back with a patch to convert traces for all ports to rte_trace, most likely in the 21.05 time frame. Is this OK for you? Yes, would be great. In general we should avoid such #ifdef in DPDK code. Maybe rte_trace can help, maybe rte_log levels would suffice. Note there is RTE_LOG_DP_LEVEL for logging in datapath.