From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] net/pcap: duplicate code consolidation
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 19:14:48 +0100
Message-ID: <6bce6701-d15e-2a77-746a-eb5624234d47@intel.com>
References: <1529419046-95906-1-git-send-email-ido@cgstowernetworks.com>
 <1529419046-95906-2-git-send-email-ido@cgstowernetworks.com>
 <b77f7cb2-a73f-030f-c7c4-8cff0f0fb70e@intel.com>
 <HE1PR0901MB14361345BF89F7E94EC808DED6770@HE1PR0901MB1436.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Ido Goshen <Ido@cgstowernetworks.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55DF11B3A6
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 20:14:50 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0901MB14361345BF89F7E94EC808DED6770@HE1PR0901MB1436.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 6/20/2018 7:06 PM, Ido Goshen wrote:
> Although there's no functional need for them I considered keeping it for maintainability reasons:
> 1. Keep the call flow more aligned with pcap (file) that has separated open_rx_pcap()/open_tx_pcap()
> 2. If in future there'll rise a need for different functionality between rx and tx then it will be a good place to hook it in. 
> e.g. if we'll want to force PCAP_D_IN/OUT for rx_iface/tx_iface as you suggested then it can go in those functions 
> (I'd like to go back to that direction issue after this fix is done)

OK. Sounds reasonable.

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 8:41 PM
> To: Ido Goshen <Ido@cgstowernetworks.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] net/pcap: duplicate code consolidation
> 
> On 6/19/2018 3:37 PM, ido goshen wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: ido goshen <ido@cgstowernetworks.com>
> 
> <...>
> 
>>  /*
>> + * Opens a NIC for reading packets from it  */ static inline int 
>> +open_rx_iface(const char *key, const char *value, void *extra_args) {
>> +	return open_iface(key, value, extra_args); }
>> +
>> +/*
>>   * Opens a NIC for writing packets to it
>>   */
>>  static int
>>  open_tx_iface(const char *key, const char *value, void *extra_args)  
>> {
>> -	const char *iface = value;
>> -	struct pmd_devargs *tx = extra_args;
>> -	pcap_t *pcap;
>> -
>> -	if (tx->num_of_queue >= RTE_PMD_PCAP_MAX_QUEUES)
>> -		return -1;
>> -	if (open_single_iface(iface, &pcap) < 0)
>> -		return -1;
>> -	tx->queue[tx->num_of_queue].pcap = pcap;
>> -	tx->queue[tx->num_of_queue].name = iface;
>> -	tx->queue[tx->num_of_queue].type = key;
>> -	tx->num_of_queue++;
>> -
>> -	return 0;
>> +	return open_iface(key, value, extra_args);
>>  }
>>  
>>  static struct rte_vdev_driver pmd_pcap_drv;
>>
> 
> Is there a reason to keep open_tx_iface() and open_rx_iface(), they both are wrapper to open_iface().
> Why not use open_iface() directly as callback function?
>