On 2/17/2023 3:03 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote: > On 2/17/23 16:41, Jiawei(Jonny) Wang wrote: >> Hi Andrew, >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 8:57 PM >>> To: Jiawei(Jonny) Wang <[email protected]>; Slava Ovsiienko >>> <[email protected]>; Ori Kam <[email protected]>; NBU-Contact- >>> Thomas Monjalon (EXTERNAL) <[email protected]>; >>> [email protected]; Aman Singh <[email protected]>; Yuying >>> Zhang <[email protected]> >>> Cc: [email protected]; Raslan Darawsheh <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] ethdev: add Tx queue mapping of >>> aggregated ports >>> >> [snip] >>>> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c >>>> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c >>>> @@ -6946,6 +6946,78 @@ >>> rte_eth_buffer_split_get_supported_hdr_ptypes(uint16_t port_id, uint32_t >>> *ptypes >>>> return j; >>>> } >>>> >>>> +int rte_eth_dev_count_aggr_ports(uint16_t port_id) { >>>> + struct rte_eth_dev *dev; >>>> + int ret; >>>> + >>>> + RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -ENODEV); >>>> + dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id]; >>>> + >>>> + if (*dev->dev_ops->count_aggr_ports == NULL) >>> >>> Is it OK that tracing is long in this case? >>> >> >> Do you mean that we don't need tracing in this case? > > Sorry for typo. I'm asking if it is OK that tracing is *lost* in this case. >
It is not black & white, but I think it is OK since there is no dev_ops called. Adding tracing here can make it unnecessary complex and for many cases tracing is limited only to success path. >> >>>> + return 0; >>>> + ret = eth_err(port_id, >>>> (*dev->dev_ops->count_aggr_ports)(port_id)); >>>> + >>>> + rte_eth_trace_count_aggr_ports(port_id, ret); >>>> + >>>> + return ret; >>>> +} >>>> + >>> >>> [snip] >> >
