2021-10-04 10:37 (UTC+0000), Harman Kalra: > [...] > > > +struct rte_intr_handle *rte_intr_handle_instance_index_get( > > > + struct rte_intr_handle *intr_handle, int > > index) > > > > If rte_intr_handle_instance_alloc() returns a pointer to an array, this > > function > > is useless since the user can simply manipulate a pointer. > > <HK> User wont be able to manipulate the pointer as he is not aware of size > of struct rte_intr_handle. > He will observe "dereferencing pointer to incomplete type" compilation error.
Sorry, my bad. > > If we want to make a distinction between a single struct rte_intr_handle and > > a commonly allocated bunch of such (but why?), then they should be > > represented by distinct types. > > <HK> Do you mean, we should have separate APIs for single allocation and > batch allocation? As get API > will be useful only in case of batch allocation. Currently interrupt > autotests and ifpga_rawdev driver makes > batch allocation. > I think common API for single and batch is fine, get API is required for > returning a particular intr_handle instance. > But one problem I see in current implementation is there should be upper > limit check for index in get/set > API, which I will fix. I don't think we need different APIs, I was asking if it was your intention. Now I understand it and agree with you. > > > +int rte_intr_handle_instance_index_set(struct rte_intr_handle > > *intr_handle, > > > + const struct rte_intr_handle *src, > > > + int index) > > > > See above regarding the "index" parameter. If it can be removed, a better > > name for this function would be rte_intr_handle_copy(). > > <HK> I think get API is required. Maybe index is still not needed: "intr_handle" can just be a pointer to the right item obtained with rte_intr_handle_instance_index_get(). This way you also don't need to duplicate the index-checking logic.
