在 2025/1/17 2:31, Stephen Hemminger 写道:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 19:40:33 +0800 Huisong Li <lihuis...@huawei.com> wrote:If application verify the validity of the port id or configure this port in the new event callback, application may happen to the port id is invalid. In case of similar confusion, this patch have to clarify something about RTE_ETH_EVENT_NEW in code. Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuis...@huawei.com> --- lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h index 1f71cad244..ee7197aa97 100644 --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h @@ -4128,7 +4128,11 @@ enum rte_eth_event_type { RTE_ETH_EVENT_VF_MBOX, /**< message from the VF received by PF */ RTE_ETH_EVENT_MACSEC, /**< MACsec offload related event */ RTE_ETH_EVENT_INTR_RMV, /**< device removal event */ - RTE_ETH_EVENT_NEW, /**< port is probed */ + /** The port is being probed, i.e. allocated and not yet available. + * It is too early to check validity, query infos, and configure + * the port. + */ + RTE_ETH_EVENT_NEW, RTE_ETH_EVENT_DESTROY, /**< port is released */ RTE_ETH_EVENT_IPSEC, /**< IPsec offload related event */ RTE_ETH_EVENT_FLOW_AGED,/**< New aged-out flows is detected */All the comments in event_type need some editing to make them more readable. It is good style when having a list to make sure that each item in a list agrees in terms of wording, verb tense, capitalization, description, etc.
I am not sure if it is appropriate just to modify the event type comments. After all, it is common issue in doc.
This can be addressed by a later patch, ideally by looking at the resulting API doc and fixing the source to match.
