On 12/4/2020 8:16 PM, Andrew Boyer wrote:
Expose ionic_opcode_to_str() so it can be used for dev cmds, too.
Store the device name in struct adapter.
Switch to memcpy() to work around gcc false positives.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Boyer <abo...@pensando.io>
---
drivers/net/ionic/ionic.h | 1 +
drivers/net/ionic/ionic_dev.c | 5 +++
drivers/net/ionic/ionic_dev.h | 2 +
drivers/net/ionic/ionic_ethdev.c | 4 +-
drivers/net/ionic/ionic_lif.c | 68 ++++++++++++++++---------------
drivers/net/ionic/ionic_mac_api.c | 4 +-
drivers/net/ionic/ionic_main.c | 32 ++++++++-------
drivers/net/ionic/ionic_rxtx.c | 41 ++++++++-----------
8 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 73 deletions(-)
<...>
@@ -1217,12 +1221,11 @@ ionic_lif_notifyq_init(struct ionic_lif *lif)
}
};
- IONIC_PRINT(DEBUG, "notifyq_init.index %d",
- ctx.cmd.q_init.index);
- IONIC_PRINT(DEBUG, "notifyq_init.ring_base 0x%" PRIx64 "",
- ctx.cmd.q_init.ring_base);
+ IONIC_PRINT(DEBUG, "notifyq_init.index %d", q->index);
+ IONIC_PRINT(DEBUG, "notifyq_init.ring_base %#jx", q->base_pa);
There are lots of similar PRIx64 -> %j change in this patch,
'%j' specifier is for 'intmax_t' and which seems 64bit storage, so this should
work with 64 bit variable 'q->base_pa',
but the variable is explicitly uint64_t why replacing 'PRIx64' usage which is
correct and more common usage in the DPDK? Why ionic is want to do this in its
own way, I am not clear of the motivation of these changes really, can you
please clarify?
<...>
@@ -1448,8 +1450,9 @@ ionic_lif_set_name(struct ionic_lif *lif)
},
};
- snprintf(ctx.cmd.lif_setattr.name, sizeof(ctx.cmd.lif_setattr.name),
- "%d", lif->port_id);
+ /* FW is responsible for NULL terminating this field */
+ memcpy(ctx.cmd.lif_setattr.name, lif->name,
+ sizeof(ctx.cmd.lif_setattr.name));
Even though FW may be guaranting the string will be null terminated, won't it be
nice to provide input as null terminated if this is the expectation?
