On 7/4/2018 3:55 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
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.
Hi, Thomas
sorry but i want to detail the relationship of the ops and api as bellow
to try if we can get the better sequence.
Patch num:
1: introduce ops hotplug_failure_handler
2: implement ops hotplug_failure_handler
3:introduce ops sigbus_handler.
4:implement ops sigbus_handler
5: introduce helper rte_bus_sigbus_handler to call the ops sigbus_handler
6: introduce the mechanism to call helper rte_bus_sigbus_handler and
call hotplug_failure_handler.
If per you said , could I modify the sequence like 6->5->3->4->1->2? I
don't think it will make sense, and might be more confused.
And I think should be better that introduce each ops just say item, then
when introduce the caller patch, the functional is ready to use by the
patch.
if i did not got your point and you have other better sequence about
that please explicit to let me know. Thanks.
