From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] net/ixgbe: add support of reset Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 10:36:17 +0200 Message-ID: <1715954.GxuFMxG21X@xps> References: <1498748282-69914-1-git-send-email-wei.dai@intel.com> <1498817556-64379-3-git-send-email-wei.dai@intel.com> <9394960.Tm5hhKpHD9@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, wenzhuo.lu@intel.com, konstantin.ananyev@intel.com, jingjing.wu@intel.com, helin.zhang@intel.com, yuan.peng@intel.com To: Wei Dai , ferruh.yigit@intel.com Return-path: Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 126962C8 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 10:36:19 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <9394960.Tm5hhKpHD9@xps> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 07/07/2017 10:25, Thomas Monjalon: > Hi, > > 30/06/2017 12:12, Wei Dai: > > +/* > > + * Reest PF device. > > + */ > > +static int > > +ixgbe_dev_reset(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) > > +{ > > + int ret; > > + > > + /* To avoid unexpected behavior in VF, disable PF reset */ > > + if (dev->data->sriov.active) > > + return -ENOTSUP; > > + > > + ret = eth_ixgbe_dev_uninit(dev); > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > + > > + ret = eth_ixgbe_dev_init(dev); > > + > > + return ret; > > +} > > rte_eth_dev_reset() just do > + rte_eth_dev_stop(port_id); > + ret = dev->dev_ops->dev_reset(dev); > > and dev_reset() just do > + ret = eth_ixgbe_dev_uninit(dev); > + ret = eth_ixgbe_dev_init(dev); > > It is doing one more thing, the check of SR-IOV. > Unfortunately, this restriction is not documented. > > This is the documentation of the new API: > > /** > + * Reset a Ethernet device. > + * > + * @param port_id > + * The port identifier of the Ethernet device. > + */ > +int rte_eth_dev_reset(uint8_t port_id); > > It is really really too short. > From the beginning of this proposal we are asking you to better explain > why this API is needed. It still does not appear in the doc. > Are you adding it to offer a new service to DPDK application developpers? > Or is it just a secret sauce that you will explain only to your customers? > > This is what is expected to be documented: > - why/when this API must be used > - what the API will do > - what is needed to do after I would like to add that the description of the API must also help other PMD maintainers to implement it. Adding a new op means more work for PMD maintainers, that's why they should understand the benefit and acknowledge it. Ferruh, as the maintainer of next-net, please could you ask for feedbacks from other PMD maintainers?