On 9/30/2021 5:33 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
On 9/29/21 2:13 PM, Singh, Aman Deep wrote:
On 9/13/2021 4:56 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
From: Viacheslav Galaktionov <viacheslav.galaktio...@oktetlabs.ru>

Getting a list of representors from a representor does not make sense.
Instead, a parent device should be used.

To this end, extend the rte_eth_dev_data structure to include the port ID
of the backing device for representors.

Signed-off-by: Viacheslav Galaktionov
<viacheslav.galaktio...@oktetlabs.ru>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru>
Acked-by: Haiyue Wang <haiyue.w...@intel.com>
Acked-by: Beilei Xing <beilei.x...@intel.com>
---
The new field is added into the hole in rte_eth_dev_data structure.
The patch does not change ABI, but extra care is required since ABI
check is disabled for the structure because of the libabigail bug [1].
It should not be a problem anyway since 21.11 is a ABI breaking release.

Potentially it is bad for out-of-tree drivers which implement
representors but do not fill in a new parert_port_id field in
rte_eth_dev_data structure. Get ID by name will not work.
Did we change name of new field from parert_port_id to backer_port_id.
Yes, see v5 changelog below.
It is done to address review notes from Ferruh on v4.

Maybe I did not put it clearly, my bad. Just wanted, in above lines also the usage
of "parert_port_id" should be changed.


mlx5 changes should be reviwed by maintainers very carefully, since
we are not sure if we patch it correctly.

[1] https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28060

v5:
      - try to improve name: backer_port_id instead of parent_port_id
      - init new field to RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS on allocation to avoid
        zero port usage by default

v4:
      - apply mlx5 review notes: remove fallback from generic ethdev
        code and add fallback to mlx5 code to handle legacy usecase

v3:
      - fix mlx5 build breakage

v2:
      - fix mlx5 review notes
      - try device port ID first before parent in order to address
        backward compatibility issue
[snip]

Reply via email to