Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] Change rte_eal_vdev_init to update port_id

[Ravi Kerur <rkerur@gmail.com>]

Hi David, Tetsuya,

I have sent V3 (changes isolated to rte_ether component) for formal review.
Please look into it and let me know your inputs.

@David: I looked at "rte_eth_dev_get_port_by_name()", this function is
similar to "rte_eth_dev_get_name_by_port" and I have used same logic. Let
me know if this not correct I can fix both.

Thanks,
Ravi


On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Ravi Kerur <rkerur@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:04 AM, David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Ravi, Tetsuya,
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Ravi Kerur <rkerur@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Let us know how you want us to fix this? To fix rte_eal_vdev_init and
>>> rte_eal_pci_probe_one to return allocated port_id we had 2 approaches
>>> mentioned in earlier discussion. In addition to those we have another
>>> approach with changes isolated only to rte_ether component. I am attaching
>>> diffs (preliminary) with this email. Please let us know your inputs since
>>> it involves EAL component.
>>>
>>
>> - This patch looks like a good ethdev cleanup (even if it really lacks
>> some context / commit log).
>>
>> I wonder just why you only take the first part of the name in
>> rte_eth_dev_get_port_by_name().
>> Would not this match, let's say, both toto and toto0 vdevs ?
>> Is this intended ?
>>
>> It was not intended, i will look into it.
>
>>
>> - In the end, with this patch, do we still need to update eal ?
>> Looking at the code, I am not sure anymore.
>>
>
> Approach 3 (preliminary diffs sent as an attachment) doesn't involve EAL
> but the other two solutions do. So please let us know which one you prefer.
> I will send updated patch.
>
> Thanks,
> Ravi
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Marchand
>>
>
>