01/04/2019 16:58, Stephen Hemminger:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 04:26:57 +0200
> Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> > index 10bdfb37e..33cffc498 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> > @@ -330,8 +330,7 @@ uint16_t
> > rte_eth_find_next(uint16_t port_id)
> > {
> > while (port_id < RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS &&
> > - rte_eth_devices[port_id].state != RTE_ETH_DEV_ATTACHED &&
> > - rte_eth_devices[port_id].state != RTE_ETH_DEV_REMOVED)
> > + rte_eth_devices[port_id].state == RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED)
>
> For some applications that iterate over ports this is a hot path.
Really?
> What about keeping an unused port bit mask and using ffs (in the future)?
I don't understand your proposal. Please could you elaborate?
Do you agree on this patch anyway?
