Agreed. I will change it to uint64_t and send it for review.
Thanks for your help.
Regards,
Subendu.
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 1:32 AM Stephen Hemminger
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 May 2022 14:39:05 +0530
> Subendu Santra wrote:
>
> > Hi Stephen, Thomas,
> >
> > On a related note w.r.to commit 1dd6cff
On Tue, 10 May 2022 14:39:05 +0530
Subendu Santra wrote:
> Hi Stephen, Thomas,
>
> On a related note w.r.to commit 1dd6cffb6571f816d5a0d1fd620f43532240b40b
> (app/procinfo: provide way to request info on owned ports), we see this
> change:
>
> -static uint32_t enabled_port_mask;
> > +static uns
Hi Stephen, Thomas,
On a related note w.r.to commit 1dd6cffb6571f816d5a0d1fd620f43532240b40b
(app/procinfo: provide way to request info on owned ports), we see this
change:
-static uint32_t enabled_port_mask;
> +static unsigned long enabled_port_mask;
While this is ok for 64-bit machines, where
On Tue, 03 May 2022 10:47:58 +0200
Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 24/04/2022 07:34, Subendu Santra:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > We were going through the patch set:
> > https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20200715212228.28010-7-step...@networkplumber.org/
> > and hoping to get clarification on the behaviour if p
24/04/2022 07:34, Subendu Santra:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> We were going through the patch set:
> https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20200715212228.28010-7-step...@networkplumber.org/
> and hoping to get clarification on the behaviour if post mask is not
> specified in the input to `dpdk-proc-info` tool.
>
>
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
Hi Stephen,
We were going through the patch set:
https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/20200715212228.28010-7-step...@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:
+
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:08:57 +0200
Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 21/07/2020 19:05, Stephen Hemminger:
> > On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 17:01:00 +0200
> > Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 15/07/2020 23:22, Stephen Hemminger:
> > > > + /* If no port mask was specified, one will be provided */
> > >
>
21/07/2020 19:05, Stephen Hemminger:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 17:01:00 +0200
> Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 15/07/2020 23:22, Stephen Hemminger:
> > > + /* If no port mask was specified, one will be provided */
> >
> > Would be nice to help the user by printing a port mask
> > of owned and unowned p
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 17:01:00 +0200
Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 15/07/2020 23:22, Stephen Hemminger:
> > --- a/app/proc-info/Makefile
> > +++ b/app/proc-info/Makefile
> > +CFLAGS += -DALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API
>
> not needed in app/
>
> > +CFLAGS += -O3
> > CFLAGS += $(WERROR_FLAGS)
> > +CFLAGS +=
15/07/2020 23:22, Stephen Hemminger:
> --- a/app/proc-info/Makefile
> +++ b/app/proc-info/Makefile
> +CFLAGS += -DALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API
not needed in app/
> +CFLAGS += -O3
> CFLAGS += $(WERROR_FLAGS)
> +CFLAGS += -Wno-deprecated-declarations
Which deprecated function is used?
We must not use d
There are cases where a port maybe owned by another (failsafe, netvsc,
bond); but currently proc-info has no way to look at stats of those
ports. This patch provides way for the user to explicitly ask for these
ports.
If no portmask is given the output is unchanged; it only shows the
top level por
12 matches
Mail list logo
