Thank you. See answers inline (mostly ack, but not only), and I will send the updated patch soon.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richardson at intel.com] > Sent: 03 March 2015 15:33 > To: Raz Amir > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] pci: save list of detached devices, and re- > probe during driver unload > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 06:33:20AM +0000, Raz Amir wrote: > > Added code that saves the pointers to the detached devices, during > > driver loading, and during driver unloading, go over the list, and > > re-attach them by calling device_probe_and_attach on each device. > > > > Signed-off-by: Raz Amir < <mailto:razamir22 at gmail.com> razamir22 at gmail.com> > > Couple of minor comments below. Otherwise all looks good to me. > > Acked-by: Bruce Richardson < <mailto:bruce.richardson at intel.com> bruce.richardson at intel.com> > > --- > > lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/nic_uio/nic_uio.c | 26 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/nic_uio/nic_uio.c > > b/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/nic_uio/nic_uio.c > > index 5ae8560..7d702a5 100644 > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/nic_uio/nic_uio.c > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/nic_uio/nic_uio.c > > @@ -55,6 +55,9 @@ __FBSDID("$FreeBSD$"); > > > > #define MAX_BARS (PCIR_MAX_BAR_0 + 1) > > > > +#define MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES 128 > > +static device_t detached_devices[MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES] = {}; static > > +int last_detached = 0; > Maybe num_detached/nb_detached or even just "detached" instead of > "last_detached". Ack. > > > > > struct nic_uio_softc { > > device_t dev_t; > > @@ -291,14 +294,35 @@ nic_uio_load(void) > > if (dev != NULL) > > We are getting into some serious levels of indentation below, so maybe flip > this condition around and put in a "continue" instead, so that we can dedent > everything below that follows it. > Ack. > > for (i = 0; i < NUM_DEVICES; i++) > > if (pci_get_vendor(dev) == devices[i].vend > && > > - pci_get_device(dev) == > devices[i].dev) > > + pci_get_device(dev) == > devices[i].dev) { > > + if (last_detached+1 < > MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES) { > I don't think you need the +1 here. It is needed, otherwise the last object will be added at MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES position while the last position is MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES-1. However, I did change the code to: if (last_detached < MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES-1) { to better reflect that. You will see it in the next patch I will send. > > > + > printf("nic_uio_load: detaching and storing dev=%p\n", dev); > > + > detached_devices[last_detached++] = dev; > > + } > > + else { > > + > printf("nic_uio_load: reached MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES=%d. > dev=%p won't be reattached\n", > > + > MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES, dev); > > + } > DPDK coding style is not to put braces around single-line statements like this. Ack. > > > > + > Remove whitespace from this new line. > Ack. > > device_detach(dev); > > + } > > } > > } > > > > static void > > nic_uio_unload(void) > > { > > + int i; > > + printf("nic_uio_unload: entered ... \n"); > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < last_detached; i++) { > > + printf("nic_uio_unload: calling to device_probe_and_attach > for dev=%p...\n", > > + detached_devices[i]); > > + device_probe_and_attach(detached_devices[i]); > > + printf("nic_uio_unload: done.\n"); > > + } > > + > > + printf("nic_uio_unload: leaving ... \n"); > > } > > > > static int > > -- > > 2.1.2 > >
