Re: [PATCH v2] app/procinfo: show all non-owned ports

[Subendu Santra <subendu@arista.com>]

Hi Thomas,

How does this patch look? Is there anything that needs to be done from my side?

Regards,
Subendu.



On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 12:44 PM Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 25 May 2022 08.04
> >
> > On Tue, 24 May 2022 22:46:05 -0700
> > Subendu Santra <subendu@arista.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Show all non-owned ports when no port mask is specified
> > >
> > > show-port option without the mask option, displays only the last
> > > non-owned port. Show all the non-owned ports instead.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 1dd6cffb6571 ("app/procinfo: provide way to request info on
> > owned
> > > ports")
> > > Cc: stephen@networkplumber.org
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Subendu Santra <subendu@arista.com>
> > > ---
> > >  app/proc-info/main.c | 4 ++--
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/app/proc-info/main.c b/app/proc-info/main.c
> > > index 56070a3317..2be24b584e 100644
> > > --- a/app/proc-info/main.c
> > > +++ b/app/proc-info/main.c
> > > @@ -1504,10 +1504,10 @@ main(int argc, char **argv)
> > >     if (nb_ports == 0)
> > >             rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "No Ethernet ports - bye\n");
> > >
> > > -   /* If no port mask was specified, then show non-owned ports */
> > > +   /* If no port mask was specified, then show all non-owned ports
> > */
> > >     if (enabled_port_mask == 0) {
> > >             RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(i)
> > > -                   enabled_port_mask = 1ul << i;
> > > +                   enabled_port_mask |= (1ul << i);
> >
> > Ok, looks good. parens on that line are unnecessary
> >
> > Note: this still will have issues with >32 ports on 32 bit platforms.
>
> The default max_ethports value in meson_options.txt is 32, so the probability is low.
>
> > But other tools probably have same problem.
>
> It was decided many years ago to extend the port_id type from uint8_t to uint16_t, mainly to support a high number of virtual ports. So it is not good that the applications have not been updated accordingly.
>
> However, as Stephen also mentions, this is not unique to this tool, so we'll just ignore it.
>
> >
> > Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
>
> Acked-by: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
>