From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: add target
 queues in flow actions
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 09:21:32 +0100
Message-ID: <20171211082132.usggk5hfz3xy5usl@laranjeiro-vm.dev.6wind.com>
References: <6ac80a2be156911ee35c894924a02f04c43f49fc.1511449894.git.nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
 <cd13bbdab7f86507e1928805a93c4e5c4491aa6d.1512396570.git.nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
 <c5a46d1d-a075-434c-4bae-ebec4f2b5b96@caviumnetworks.com>
 <20171208144000.seega54cbv7prktb@laranjeiro-vm.dev.6wind.com>
 <11087367-b892-aae7-07bc-555232a0ce8d@caviumnetworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>,
 Radu Nicolau <radu.nicolau@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org
To: Anoob Joseph <anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wr0-f172.google.com (mail-wr0-f172.google.com
 [209.85.128.172]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 902E2E5D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 09:21:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wr0-f172.google.com with SMTP id z34so16531984wrz.10
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 00:21:12 -0800 (PST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <11087367-b892-aae7-07bc-555232a0ce8d@caviumnetworks.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>

Hi Anoob,

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:10:28PM +0530, Anoob Joseph wrote:
> HI Nelio,
> 
> 
> On 08-12-2017 20:10, Nelio Laranjeiro wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 07:30:03PM +0530, Anoob wrote:
> > > Hi Nelio,
> > > 
> > > 
> > [...]
> > > > +					goto flow_create;
> > > > +				/* Try Queue. */
> > > > +				for (i = 0;
> > > > +				     i < eth_dev->data->nb_rx_queues; ++i)
> > > > +					if (eth_dev->data->rx_queues[i])
> > > > +						break;
> > > Is the following check correct?
> > [...]
> > 
> > For an application, it seems not necessary.  The application knows which
> > queues are configured in the drivers has it has made the configuration.
> > 
> > Removing it in the v3.
> I think you misunderstood me here.

Indeed, I misunderstood,

> I was talking about the following line.
> 
> +				if (i != eth_dev->data->nb_rx_queues)
> +					return -1;
> 
> Shouldn't it be?
> 
> +				if (i == eth_dev->data->nb_rx_queues)
> +					return -1;

Yes it should.

Anyway, I don't thing it is necessary to keep this check, from what I
saw in the application source code, it initialise all Rx queues up to
nb_rx_queues without leaving any hole.
According to this, I'll just remove this verification,  is it okay for
you?

Thanks,

-- 
Nélio Laranjeiro
6WIND