Understood. I already sent the updated patch, so I will fix this and resend it soon.
-----Original Message----- From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richard...@intel.com] Sent: 04 March 2015 12:13 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 Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 11:07:41AM +0200, Raz Amir wrote: > 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. Yes, the last position is MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES-1, but you do the addition of the element to the array using "detached_devices[last_detached++]", i.e. a post-increment, so when last_detached == (MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES-1), you still can fill in an entry. Next time around, when last_detached == MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES it's no longer safe to add, and the condition "last_detached < MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES) will now fail. No +1 or -1 necessary to prevent this. /Bruce
