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

[Ravi Kerur <rkerur@gmail.com>]

Hi Tetsuya,


On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa@igel.co.jp> wrote:

> On 2015/09/24 6:22, Ravi Kerur wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Hi Ravi,
>
> I've checked the patch.
> I guess your patch is good.
>
> >
> > @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.
>
> Do you comment about rte_eth_dev_get_port_by_name and
> rte_eth_dev_get_port_by_addr?
> If so, I guess we don't need to merge.
>
>
I just mentioned that new functions are using same logic as existing
function.

Thanks,
Ravi


> > 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
> >>>
> >>
>
>