Hello Stephen, Please provide ack on below change if there is no concern so that it can be accepted on 20.05.
Regards Sunil Kumar Kori >-----Original Message----- >From: Sunil Kumar Kori >Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 2:00 PM >To: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>; Jerin Jacob >Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org >Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH] bus/pci: restricted bus scanning to >allowed devices > >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
