Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/3] l3fwd-power: add interrupt-only mode

From: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
To: Harman Kalra <hkalra@marvell.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, David Hunt <david.hunt@intel.com>,
	liang.j.ma@intel.com, reshma.pattan@intel.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/3] l3fwd-power: add interrupt-only mode
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 15:19:45 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <660267ae-00a0-bb55-fbc3-9ac1473957ea@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200529131955.GA83122@outlook.office365.com>

On 29-May-20 2:19 PM, Harman Kalra wrote:

>>   	if (ret < 0)
>>   		rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "Invalid L3FWD parameters\n");
>>   
>> -	if (app_mode != APP_MODE_TELEMETRY && init_power_library())
>> +	if (app_mode == APP_MODE_DEFAULT)
>> +		app_mode = APP_MODE_LEGACY;
>> +
>> +	/* only legacy and empty poll mode rely on power library */
>> +	if ((app_mode == APP_MODE_LEGACY || app_mode == APP_MODE_EMPTY_POLL) &&
>> +			init_power_library())
>>   		rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "init_power_library failed\n");
>>   
> Hi,
> 
> Rather than just exiting from here can we have a else condition to
> automatically enter into the "interrupt only" mode.
> Please correct me if I am missing something.

Hi,

Thanks for your review. I don't think silently proceeding is a good 
idea. If the user wants interrupt-only mode, they should request it. 
Silently falling back to interrupt-only mode will create an illusion of 
successful initialization and set the wrong expectation for how the 
application will behave.

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly