> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of De Lara Guarch, > Pablo > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 9:32 AM > To: Olivier MATZ > Cc: thomas.monja...@6wind.com; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] eal: redefine logtype values > > Hi Olivier, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.m...@6wind.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 8:24 PM > > To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo > > Cc: thomas.monja...@6wind.com; dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] eal: redefine logtype values > > > > Hi Pablo, > > > > > > On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:35:32 +0100 > > Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com> wrote: > > ... > > > > > > > Thanks for spotting this issue. I think there is still a problem with > > the deprecated functions for which we want to keep compat: > > > > /* Set global log type */ > > __rte_deprecated void > > rte_set_log_type(uint32_t type, int enable) > > { > > if (type < RTE_LOGTYPE_FIRST_EXT_ID) { > > if (enable) > > rte_logs.type |= type; > > else > > rte_logs.type &= ~type; > > } > > > > if (enable) > > rte_log_set_level(type, 0); > > else > > rte_log_set_level(type, RTE_LOG_DEBUG); > > } > > > > /* Get global log type */ > > __rte_deprecated uint32_t > > rte_get_log_type(void) > > { > > return rte_logs.type; > > } > > > > > > There is a problem in these functions because they expect bitmasks > > for the first part. > > > > I does not look so easy to both fix the issue and keep a full compat > > with previous functions. > > > > The first solution is your patch + add a shift in rte_set_log_type(). > > It would work except if an application uses rte_get_log_type() and masks > > the result with a RTE_LOGTYPE_* (which will not be a bitmask). I think > > it's a rare case. > > > > The second approach would be to define new constants for the new > > functions and keep the old ones for the old functions. This approach > > is probably more confusing. It also requires to check the doc and > > examples again. > > > > Any opinion? > > I would prefer the first solution. If you want I can send a patch > > updated based on yours. > > Oh yes, I missed that too. First option looks ok to me, so send a patch if you > like.
Hi Olivier, I just saw a comment from Stephen Hemminger, so do not send the patch yet, as I am making changes to the v2. Actually, I can make this change too, since it is a minor one. Thanks, Pablo
