Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: Xu, Rosen <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 14:29 > To: David Marchand <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; Zhang, Tianfei <[email protected]>; Huang, > Wei <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 12/20] raw/ifpga: inherit lock annotations > > Hi, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Marchand <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, February 24, 2023 11:12 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected]; Xu, Rosen <[email protected]>; Zhang, > > Tianfei <[email protected]> > > Subject: [PATCH v2 12/20] raw/ifpga: inherit lock annotations > > > > The checks in those helpers are useless: > > - all (start/stop/reset/test) callers ensure that dev != NULL, > > - dev->sd can't be NULL either as it would mean the application is calling > > those helpers for a dev pointer that did not pass initialisation, > > > > Once the checks are removed, the only thing that remains is calls to > > the rte_spinlock API, so simply use macros and inherit annotations > > from the lock API. > > > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/raw/ifpga/afu_pmd_core.c | 17 ++--------------- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/raw/ifpga/afu_pmd_core.c > > b/drivers/raw/ifpga/afu_pmd_core.c > > index ddf7a34f33..3ab1f47ac1 100644 > > --- a/drivers/raw/ifpga/afu_pmd_core.c > > +++ b/drivers/raw/ifpga/afu_pmd_core.c > > @@ -23,21 +23,8 @@ static struct rte_afu_uuid > > afu_pmd_uuid_map[AFU_RAWDEV_MAX_DRVS+1]; > > TAILQ_HEAD(afu_drv_list, afu_rawdev_drv); static struct afu_drv_list > > afu_pmd_list = TAILQ_HEAD_INITIALIZER(afu_pmd_list); > > > > -static inline int afu_rawdev_trylock(struct afu_rawdev *dev) -{ > > - if (!dev || !dev->sd) > > - return 0; > > - > > - return rte_spinlock_trylock(&dev->sd->lock); > > -} > > - > > -static inline void afu_rawdev_unlock(struct afu_rawdev *dev) -{ > > - if (!dev || !dev->sd) > > - return; > > - > > - rte_spinlock_unlock(&dev->sd->lock); > > -} > > +#define afu_rawdev_trylock(dev) rte_spinlock_trylock(&dev->sd->lock) > > +#define afu_rawdev_unlock(dev) rte_spinlock_unlock(&dev->sd->lock) > > > > static int afu_rawdev_configure(const struct rte_rawdev *rawdev, > > rte_rawdev_obj_t config, size_t config_size) > > -- > > 2.39.2 > > > It looks good for me. > Reviewed-by: Rosen Xu <[email protected]>
Agree that pointer check is redundant, rte_spinlock API can be called directly. Reviewed-by: Wei Huang <[email protected]>
