On 4/12/2019 6:25 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 4/12/2019 6:15 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ferruh Yigit >>> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 6:09 PM >>> To: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>; Richardson, Bruce >>> <bruce.richard...@intel.com> >>> Cc: David Christensen <d...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>; tho...@monjalon.net; >>> arybche...@solarflare.com; dev@dpdk.org; >>> radhika.chi...@ibm.com; sta...@dpdk.org >>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: missing typecast from void in >>> eth_dev_pci_specific_init >>> >>> On 4/11/2019 12:08 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 22:00:18 +0100 >>>> Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 03:16:16PM -0500, David Christensen wrote: >>>>>> The function eth_dev_pci_specific_init is missing a typecast to >>>>>> (struct rte_pci_device *) for the input argument bus_device. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: David Christensen <d...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>>>>> Tested-by: Radhika Chirra <radhika.chi...@ibm.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev_pci.h | 2 +- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev_pci.h >>>>>> b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev_pci.h >>>>>> index 23257e9..a325311 100644 >>>>>> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev_pci.h >>>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev_pci.h >>>>>> @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ >>>>>> >>>>>> static inline int >>>>>> eth_dev_pci_specific_init(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev, void >>>>>> *bus_device) { >>>>>> - struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev = bus_device; >>>>>> + struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev = (struct rte_pci_device >>>>>> *)bus_device; >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is this needed for building some C++ apps that are including the header >>>>> file (directly, or indirectly), because for pure C, "void *" types should >>>>> be assignable to any other pointer type without casting? >>>>> >>>>> /Bruce >>>> >>>> Another example of Why the Hell is this inline? >>>> >>> >>> It has been done inline intentionally at the time as far as remember, this >>> header is for drivers not for applications, it has helper functions. >>> >>> The common code from drivers related to the bus put into header files, so >>> the >>> code itself belongs to drivers not ethdev and reduces duplicates in them. >> >> Ok that's the common code used by the drivers... >> But why it still can't be in .c file? > > When it is in .c file, it will be either in ethdev library, single location in > .c file and binary file, but location is not exactly right, because code > belongs > to drivers. > Or code should be in .c files of each drivers, this will be code duplication. > > Having in .h file makes code in single place, but when compiled code will be > in > each driver object file/ library. > > Of course it works when put into a .c file in ehtdev, but bus (pci and vdev) > related code are not belongs to ethdev library and I believe shouldn't be part > of ethdev binary. And those bus helper headers are only for drivers to > include, > so having inline shouldn't be a problem at all because there is not stability > concern in that interface. >
btw, if you put those into .c file in ethdev, you will be creating a dependency from ethdev to bus code, to all available buses which will make impossible to disable any bus type if you use ethdev.
