From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 03/48] net/mlx4: check max number of ports
	dynamically
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:52:23 +0200
Message-ID: <20170802075223.GW19852@6wind.com>
References: <cover.1501598383.git.adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
 <04ea7bf54d1ddba834fb187ae169b3de79b5aaa0.1501598384.git.adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
 <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D8523969F2112@ALA-MBD.corp.ad.wrs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 =?utf-8?Q?Ga=C3=ABtan?= Rivet <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>
To: "Legacy, Allain" <Allain.Legacy@windriver.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wr0-f171.google.com (mail-wr0-f171.google.com
 [209.85.128.171]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C0DC913D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  2 Aug 2017 09:52:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wr0-f171.google.com with SMTP id y43so15374740wrd.3
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 02 Aug 2017 00:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D8523969F2112@ALA-MBD.corp.ad.wrs.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 05:35:30PM +0000, Legacy, Allain wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adrien Mazarguil [mailto:adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 12:54 PM
> <...>
> > @@ -5946,12 +5949,11 @@ mlx4_arg_parse(const char *key, const char *val,
> > void *out)
> >  		return -errno;
> >  	}
> >  	if (strcmp(MLX4_PMD_PORT_KVARG, key) == 0) {
> > -		if (tmp >= MLX4_PMD_MAX_PHYS_PORTS) {
> > -			ERROR("invalid port index %lu (max: %u)",
> > -				tmp, MLX4_PMD_MAX_PHYS_PORTS - 1);
> > +		if (!(conf->ports.present & (1 << tmp))) {
> > +			ERROR("invalid port index %lu", tmp);
> 
> The original error included the max value.  Wouldn't it be useful to report this to the 
> user to help them understand their mistake?

Makes sense, I'll add it back.

> > @@ -6085,16 +6092,16 @@ mlx4_pci_probe(struct rte_pci_driver *pci_drv,
> > struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev)
> >  	}
> >  	INFO("%u port(s) detected", device_attr.phys_port_cnt);
> > 
> > +	for (i = 0; i < device_attr.phys_port_cnt; ++i)
> > +		conf.ports.present |= 1 << i;
> 
> The loop could be avoided with:
> 
> 	conf.ports.present = (1 << device_attr.phys_port_cnt) - 1;

I will also make that change in the next iteration, thanks.

-- 
Adrien Mazarguil
6WIND