Hello All, Is there any thought on this ? Otherwise it can be merged.
Regards Sunil Kumar Kori >-----Original Message----- >From: Sunil Kumar Kori >Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 2:13 PM >To: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>; Jerin Jacob >Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com> >Subject: FW: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH] bus/pci: restricted bus scanning to >allowed devices > >Hello Stephen, > >Can you please look into this patch or provide your thought in this ? So that >it >can be merged within 20.02 release. > >Regards >Sunil Kumar Kori > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sunil Kumar Kori <sk...@marvell.com> >Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:09 PM >To: Sunil Kumar Kori <sk...@marvell.com>; Stephen Hemminger ><step...@networkplumber.org> >Cc: dev@dpdk.org >Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH] bus/pci: restricted bus scanning to >allowed devices > >Hello Stephen, >Any suggestions ? > >Regards >Sunil Kumar Kori > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Sunil Kumar Kori >>Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 4:30 PM >>To: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> >>Cc: dev@dpdk.org >>Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH] bus/pci: restricted bus >>scanning to allowed devices >> >> >> >>Regards >>Sunil Kumar Kori >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> >>>Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 9:43 PM >>>To: Sunil Kumar Kori <sk...@marvell.com> >>>Cc: dev@dpdk.org >>>Subject: [EXT] Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] bus/pci: restricted bus scanning >>>to allowed devices >>> >>>External Email >>> >>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> /* Create dummy pci device to get devargs */ >>>> + dummy_dev.addr.domain = >>>matches[i].pc_sel.pc_domain; >>>> + dummy_dev.addr.bus = matches[i].pc_sel.pc_bus; >>>> + dummy_dev.addr.devid = matches[i].pc_sel.pc_dev; >>>> + dummy_dev.addr.function = >>>matches[i].pc_sel.pc_func; >>>> + dummy_dev.device.devargs = >>>> + >>> pci_devargs_lookup(&dummy_dev); >>>> + >>>> + /* Check that device should be ignored or not */ >>>> + if (pci_ignore_device(&dummy_dev)) >>>> + continue; >>> >>>It seems that you are creating dummy_dev as an alternative to passing >>>just the PCI bus/device/function. Wouldn't be easier to just use BDF >>>instead. Dummy arguments on the stack can lead to more corner cases in >>>the future if device subsystem changes. >>Agreed and initially I have implemented using BDF only instead of using >>dummy device. >>But using that approach, I was not able to use existing APIs to get >>devargs and ignore device. >>I had to write almost same functions to solve the purpose. So just to >>avoid having replica of same code, I followed this approach. Please suggest. >>> >>>> +/** >>>> + * Get the devargs of a PCI device. >>>> + * >>>> + * @param pci_dev >>>> + * PCI device to be validated >>>> + * @return >>>> + * devargs on succes, NULL otherwise >>>> + */ >>>> +struct rte_devargs *pci_devargs_lookup(struct rte_pci_device >>>> +*pci_dev); >>> >>>Must be marked experimental (or internal). >>>The pci_device should be marked const. >>Okay but If I go with BDF one then this change is not required anyway. >>> >>> >>>> + >>>> +/** >>>> + * Validate whether a pci device should be ignored or not. >>>> + * >>>> + * @param pci_dev >>>> + * PCI device to be validated >>>> + * @return >>>> + * 1 if device is to be ignored, 0 otherwise >>>> + */ >>>> +bool pci_ignore_device(const struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev); >>> >>>ditto >>ditto
