From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Zhang, Qi Z" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] net/i40e: enable VF untag drop Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 03:24:28 +0000 Message-ID: <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E7061153064A90@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <20170303015924.68986-1-qi.z.zhang@intel.com> <20170303015924.68986-2-qi.z.zhang@intel.com> <99df9cb9-cbad-d41a-7b99-2888e4f926cb@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" To: "Yigit, Ferruh" , "Wu, Jingjing" , "Zhang, Helin" Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B76F837B4 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 04:24:33 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <99df9cb9-cbad-d41a-7b99-2888e4f926cb@intel.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi Ferruh: > -----Original Message----- > From: Yigit, Ferruh > Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 6:51 PM > To: Zhang, Qi Z ; Wu, Jingjing ; > Zhang, Helin > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] net/i40e: enable VF untag drop >=20 > On 3/3/2017 1:59 AM, Qi Zhang wrote: > > Add a new private API to support the untag drop enable/disable for > > specific VF. > > > > Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang > > --- > > drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c | 49 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h | 18 +++++++++++++++ >=20 > Shared library is giving build error because of API is missing in *versio= n.map file >=20 > > 2 files changed, 67 insertions(+) > > >=20 > <...> >=20 > > diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h > > b/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h index a0ad88c..895e2cc 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h > > +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/rte_pmd_i40e.h > > @@ -332,4 +332,22 @@ int rte_pmd_i40e_get_vf_stats(uint8_t port, int > > rte_pmd_i40e_reset_vf_stats(uint8_t port, > > uint16_t vf_id); > > > > +/** > > + * Enable/Disable VF untag drop > > + * > > + * @param port > > + * The port identifier of the Ethernet device. > > + * @param vf_id > > + * VF on witch to enable/disable > > + * @param on > > + * Enable or Disable > > + * @retura >=20 > @return >=20 > > + * - (0) if successful. > > + * -(-ENODEVE) if *port* invalid > > + * -(-EINVAL) if bad parameter. > > + */ > > +int rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_untag_drop(uint8_t port, > > + uint16_t vf_id, > > + uint8_t on); >=20 > As discussed previously, I believe it is good to keep following syntax in= API: > __, for this API it becomes: I think, current naming rule is __ right? See b= elow rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_anti_spoof; rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_filter; rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_insert; rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_stripq; rte_pmd_i40e_set_vf_vlan_tag; so what's wrong with this? >=20 > rte_pmd_i40e_vf_vlan_untag_drop_set(), and perhaps "set" can be removed? >=20 > > + > > #endif /* _PMD_I40E_H_ */ > >