On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 03:36:05PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 03:21:04PM +0100, Anatoly Burakov wrote:
> > Currently, the `ice_testpmd.c` file includes headers that are only
> > available to driver itself, but should not be available to applications,
> > including testpmd. Instead, testpmd should access them through public PMD
> > specific API.
> >
> > The ice driver does not have one (even though it offers a testpmd file), so
> > add the public PMD-specific API header, move all function definitions
> > into that file, and get rid of driver-private includes in testpmd file.
> >
> > Fixes: df539aaf35cb ("net/ice: refactor flex descriptor protocol field
> > extraction")
> > Cc: [email protected]
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > doc/guides/nics/ice.rst | 3 +
> > doc/guides/rel_notes/release_26_11.rst | 2 +
> > drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_diagnose.c | 1 +
> > drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_ethdev.h | 9 ---
> > drivers/net/intel/ice/ice_testpmd.c | 7 ++-
> > drivers/net/intel/ice/meson.build | 1 +
> > drivers/net/intel/ice/rte_pmd_ice.h | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 7 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 drivers/net/intel/ice/rte_pmd_ice.h
> >
>
> Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <[email protected]>
>
> Given where we are, this is probably a reasonable solution. However, I'm
> also thinking that maybe we should have a discussion as to whether testpmd
> - which is, after all, for testing PMDs - should be limited to the public
> APIs. Is there not a case to be made for allowing the per-driver testpmd
> files to access the internals of the driver for testing purposes?
>
+techboard and others for more input and thoughts for the future.
