Hi Andrew,
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 3:46 PM
>To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemi...@nvidia.com>; NBU-Contact-Thomas
>Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>;
>Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com>
>Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Slava Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com>; Asaf Penso
><as...@nvidia.com>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/9] ethdev: support representor port list
>
>On 1/18/21 2:16 PM, Xueming Li wrote:
>> To support extended representor syntax, this patch extends the
>> representor list parsing to support for representor port range in
>> devargs, examples:
>> representor=[1,2,3] - single list
>> representor=[1,3-5,7,9-11] - list with singles and ranges
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xueming Li <xuemi...@nvidia.com>
>> Acked-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com>
>
>See below
>
>> ---
>> lib/librte_ethdev/ethdev_private.c | 105 ++++++++++++++---------------
>> lib/librte_ethdev/ethdev_private.h | 3 -
>> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_class_eth.c | 4 +-
>> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c | 5 +-
>> 4 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/ethdev_private.c
>> b/lib/librte_ethdev/ethdev_private.c
>> index c1a411dba4..12bcc7e98d 100644
>> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/ethdev_private.c
>> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/ethdev_private.c
>> @@ -38,77 +38,71 @@ eth_find_device(const struct rte_eth_dev *start,
>rte_eth_cmp_t cmp,
>> return NULL;
>> }
>>
>> -int
>> -rte_eth_devargs_parse_list(char *str, rte_eth_devargs_callback_t callback,
>> - void *data)
>> +static int
>> +rte_eth_devargs_enlist(uint16_t *list, uint16_t *len_list,
>> + const uint16_t max_list, uint16_t val)
>> {
>> - char *str_start;
>> - int state;
>> - int result;
>> -
>> - if (*str != '[')
>> - /* Single element, not a list */
>> - return callback(str, data);
>> -
>> - /* Sanity check, then strip the brackets */
>> - str_start = &str[strlen(str) - 1];
>> - if (*str_start != ']') {
>> - RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "(%s): List does not end with ']'\n", str);
>> - return -EINVAL;
>> - }
>> - str++;
>> - *str_start = '\0';
>> + uint16_t i;
>>
>> - /* Process list elements */
>> - state = 0;
>> - while (1) {
>> - if (state == 0) {
>> - if (*str == '\0')
>> - break;
>> - if (*str != ',') {
>> - str_start = str;
>> - state = 1;
>> - }
>> - } else if (state == 1) {
>> - if (*str == ',' || *str == '\0') {
>> - if (str > str_start) {
>> - /* Non-empty string fragment */
>> - *str = '\0';
>> - result = callback(str_start, data);
>> - if (result < 0)
>> - return result;
>> - }
>> - state = 0;
>> - }
>> - }
>> - str++;
>> + if (*len_list >= max_list)
>> + return -1;
>
>If current length is equal to max, but added value is already is in the list,
>it
>should not be an error. So, these two lines should be moved after below for
>loop.
>
>> + for (i = 0; i < *len_list; i++) {
>> + if (list[i] == val)
>> + return 0;
>> }
>> + list[(*len_list)++] = val;
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static int
>> +static char *
>> rte_eth_devargs_process_range(char *str, uint16_t *list, uint16_t *len_list,
>> const uint16_t max_list)
>> {
>> uint16_t lo, hi, val;
>> int result;
>> + char *pos = str;
>>
>> result = sscanf(str, "%hu-%hu", &lo, &hi);
>> if (result == 1) {
>> - if (*len_list >= max_list)
>> - return -ENOMEM;
>> - list[(*len_list)++] = lo;
>> + if (rte_eth_devargs_enlist(list, len_list, max_list, lo) != 0)
>> + return NULL;
>> } else if (result == 2) {
>> - if (lo >= hi || lo > RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS || hi >
>RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS)
>
>Strictly speaking removal of comparision vs RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS is a separate
>logical change with a separate motivation.
To make this function comment for controller/pf/vf/sf parsing, the max value is
passed in as parameter and checked in rte_eth_devargs_enlist().
Caller code in rte_eth_devargs_process_list() decide the max value.
>
>> - return -EINVAL;
>> + if (lo >= hi)
>
>I'd remove '=' here. It should not be a problem and handed perfectly by below
>code. I see no point to deny 3-3 range which is an equivalent for just 3. It
>could be convenient in some cases.
>
>> + return NULL;
>> for (val = lo; val <= hi; val++) {
>> - if (*len_list >= max_list)
>> - return -ENOMEM;
>> - list[(*len_list)++] = val;
>> + if (rte_eth_devargs_enlist(list, len_list, max_list,
>> + val) != 0)
>> + return NULL;
>> }
>> } else
>> - return -EINVAL;
>> - return 0;
>> + return NULL;
>> + while (*pos != 0 && ((*pos >= '0' && *pos <= '9') || *pos == '-'))
>
>*post != '\0' is a bit better looking at subsequent comparisons. Yes, it is
>just
>style. Up to you.
>
>> + pos++;
>
>It looks too fragile. May I suggest to use %n in above scanf to be able to skip
>only parsed characters.
>
>> + return pos;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static char *
>> +rte_eth_devargs_process_list(char *str, uint16_t *list, uint16_t *len_list,
>> + const uint16_t max_list)
>> +{
>> + char *pos = str;
>> +
>> + if (*pos == '[')
>> + pos++;
>> + while (1) {
>> + pos = rte_eth_devargs_process_range(pos, list, len_list,
>> + max_list);
>> + if (pos == NULL)
>> + return NULL;
>> + if (*pos != ',') /* end of list */
>> + break;
>> + pos++;
>> + }
>> + if (*str == '[' && *pos != ']')
>> + return NULL;
>> + if (*pos == ']')
>> + pos++;
>> + return pos;
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -121,6 +115,9 @@ rte_eth_devargs_parse_representor_ports(char *str,
>void *data)
>> struct rte_eth_devargs *eth_da = data;
>>
>> eth_da->type = RTE_ETH_REPRESENTOR_VF;
>> - return rte_eth_devargs_process_range(str, eth_da-
>>representor_ports,
>> + str = rte_eth_devargs_process_list(str, eth_da->representor_ports,
>> ð_da->nb_representor_ports, RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS);
>
>Not directly related to the patch, but I dislike RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS above.
>RTE_DIM(eth_da->representor_ports) would be more readable.
The array dim could be different than RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS, although they are
same today 😊
>
>> + if (str == NULL)
>> + RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "wrong representor format: %s\n", str);
>> + return str == NULL ? -1 : 0;
>> }
>
>
>[snip]
Other comments looks great, will update, thanks!
