18/04/2019 13:50, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 4/17/2019 11:59 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > Some port iterations are manually checking against RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED
> > instead of using the iterators based on rte_eth_find_next().
> >
> > A new macro RTE_ETH_FOREACH_VALID_DEV() is introduced, but kept private
> > because there should be no need of iterating over all devices in the API.
> > The public iterators have additional filters for ownership, parent device
> > or sibling ports.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5.c | 9 ++-------
> > lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c | 25 ++++++++++++-------------
>
> No strong opinion but should we separate patch for driver and the library,
> logically both changes RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED check with macros, but there is no
> dependency, I mean they are individual changes, driver patch will be valid on
> its own.
This is the same change. I removed usage of RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED.
By chance, it was used only in ethdev and mlx5.
I don't feel the need to split because there are usages in different files.
> > +#define RTE_ETH_FOREACH_VALID_DEV(port_id) \
> > + for (port_id = rte_eth_find_next(0); \
> > + port_id < RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS; \
> > + port_id = rte_eth_find_next(port_id + 1))
> > +
>
> What do you think adding some documentation to the new macro, specially I
> think
> documenting the difference between "RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV" and this one can be
> good otherwise it may confuse people that "RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV" iterates on
> invalid devices too?
This one is not part of the API.
I am not sure what I can document more than "iterating all valid ports"?
About RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV, it is already documented:
"Macro to iterate over all enabled and ownerless ethdev ports."
