04/07/2018 09:16, Guo, Jia:
>
> On 7/4/2018 6:21 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 29/06/2018 12:30, Jeff Guo:
> >> /**
> >> + * Implementation a specific hot plug handler, which is responsible
> >> + * for handle the failure when hot remove the device, guaranty the system
> >> + * would not crash in the case.
> >> + * @param dev
> >> + * Pointer of the device structure.
> >> + *
> >> + * @return
> >> + * 0 on success.
> >> + * !0 on error.
> >> + */
> >> +typedef int (*rte_bus_hotplug_handler_t)(struct rte_device *dev);
> > [...]
> >> @@ -211,6 +224,8 @@ struct rte_bus {
> >> rte_bus_parse_t parse; /**< Parse a device name */
> >> struct rte_bus_conf conf; /**< Bus configuration */
> >> rte_bus_get_iommu_class_t get_iommu_class; /**< Get iommu class */
> >> + rte_bus_hotplug_handler_t hotplug_handler;
> >> + /**< handle hot plug on bus */
> > The name is misleading.
> > It is to handle unplugging but is called "hotplug".
>
> ok, so i prefer hotplug_failure_handler than hot_unplug_handler, since
> it is more explicit for failure handle, and more clearly.
>
> > In order to demonstrate how the handler is used, you should
> > introduce the code using this handler in the same patch.
> >
>
> sorry, i check the history of rte_bus.h, and the way is introduce ops at
> first, second implement in specific bus, then come across the usage.
> I think that way clear and make sense. what do you think?
> Anyway, i will check the commit log if is there any misleading.
I think it is better to call ops when they are introduced,
and implement the ops in second step.
