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 4B9CEA0093; Tue, 3 May 2022 10:44:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69272410FC; Tue, 3 May 2022 10:44:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-yw1-f169.google.com (mail-yw1-f169.google.com [209.85.128.169]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D04B4068F for ; Tue, 3 May 2022 07:30:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-yw1-f169.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-2f83983782fso169107667b3.6 for ; Mon, 02 May 2022 22:30:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arista.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Kai7i3XjaQ8rqqPzl99g4Dmh15GURuuh++fn40/8yTY=; b=ego+rcXi2L+goHSnOGlhVX5gMbGGDmateY5XFnUx9gcChnvns6bAAcSPwkAwfmfdhd RpN4fRnWsmmHtYENnaoQGxJA7IHxzv36GDcX8/riCsirYtEPw7CGGiaRhbSjV/xlzwgW iC0XQZaQ4UGiP5oq/+FgCiXgfL5RerRz3t5JbSVN3LNPIxH1hNP/FuLc/u4gSceGkcPt DZhg0sXVdjtGU8WyKyaIB9xY+feHQ7qMwXClxujUL4zlEYNv+FbfsCuS9XiYxWFaEvRa LdJKWd8NOd3lek0Hhum6yf9sICLl419msUg/akZTtUY7UcUcDk94GJfLk6hygGgeN5gx Z6rA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Kai7i3XjaQ8rqqPzl99g4Dmh15GURuuh++fn40/8yTY=; b=0Ct2YayOVul3dRBro+02+vtDQVFyrHcm5pyArnuACq604LMIGRPzmNPoDPwjFiP0Vo VU+cdrol/OquBYZKrvE4UAN797zqHBJXJ2idBY5MX7GfUvYcEPzFoqYU7C0+j0GOtuMi dxQVwjuZwwighPGQrzX9oaciC/fMg5ZVGRV8nK19SGEl1i7q9IuYIWx7WvJ1i2jWCqTF IQV+Yy43WbrIZMRuxkEa5qqdXSlRIvonseD2I1XFMtv2k7UHP7BUBbyC+H67XPkhHf92 wDpNI8AnGpowggM5I0gGWCtAD/1QhU9ochJVRi6wKfqNNP/+8VaDsODZ6pfGclst4+Xn SU0A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5307KMHm8OsrYzhmZCd+BbnnzWOuzr7lHbUQBfpcAc29FpqyVtxj ecsvbCMPSw723FmOL+ZuOHf1XNf5jG+HR+hhEeaB X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxdlxqLIyT3QyWHtFtTKa4Y9ljtSLidvjfAjqYUXqaMvDYCAQxhXyljEDxLJ/v1MINGIDbvEAfuvCkfiUl+QFk= X-Received: by 2002:a81:c8b:0:b0:2f8:29f8:ae41 with SMTP id 133-20020a810c8b000000b002f829f8ae41mr14051685ywm.439.1651555810351; Mon, 02 May 2022 22:30:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3710E2E2-5CCC-41F3-A12A-E8B6A884CC40@arista.com> In-Reply-To: <3710E2E2-5CCC-41F3-A12A-E8B6A884CC40@arista.com> From: Subendu Santra Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 10:59:54 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/7] app/proc-info: provide way to request info on owned ports To: stephen@networkplumber.org Cc: dev@dpdk.org, hemant.agrawal@nxp.com, maryam.tahhan@intel.com, reshma.pattan@intel.com, Sriram Rajagopalan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000673bea05de14cd2e" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 03 May 2022 10:44:46 +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 --000000000000673bea05de14cd2e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Stephen, Could you please help us understand the rationale behind showing just the last non-owned port in case the port mask was not specified? I really appreciate your help in this regard. Regards, Subendu. On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 11:04 AM Subendu Santra wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > We were going through the patch set: > https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20200715212228.28010-7-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. > > 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 cas= e > the port mask was not specified? > Should we show all non-owned ports in case the user doesn=E2=80=99t speci= fy any > port mask? > > Regards, > Subendu. > > > > --000000000000673bea05de14cd2e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Stephen,

Could you please help us un= derstand the rationale behind=C2=A0showing just the last non-owned port in = case the port mask was not specified?
I really appreciate your he= lp in this regard.

Re= gards,
Subendu.


<= br>
On Sun,= Apr 24, 2022 at 11:04 AM Subendu Santra <subendu@arista.com> wrote:
Hi Step= hen,

We were going through the patch set:=C2=A0https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20200715212228.28010-7= -stephen@networkplumber.org/ and hoping to get clarification on the beh= aviour 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 mas=
k 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?<= /div>
Should we show all non-owned ports in case the user doesn= =E2=80=99t specify any port mask?

Regards,
Subendu.



--000000000000673bea05de14cd2e--