On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 18:26:30 +0000
"Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles at intel.com> wrote:
> On 1/7/16, 12:19 PM, "dev on behalf of Stephen Hemminger" <dev-bounces at
> dpdk.org on behalf of stephen at networkplumber.org> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 22:03:03 +0530
> >Santosh Shukla <sshukla at mvista.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> +int rte_eal_pci_read_bar(const struct rte_pci_device *device __rte_unused,
> >> + void *buf __rte_unused,
> >> + size_t len __rte_unused,
> >> + off_t offset __rte_unused,
> >> + int bar_idx __rte_unused)
> >> +{
> >> +#ifdef VFIO_PRESENT
> >> + const struct rte_intr_handle *intr_handle = &device->intr_handle;
> >> + return pci_vfio_read_bar(intr_handle, buf, len, offset, bar_idx);
> >> +#else
> >> + return 0; /* UIO's not applicable */
> >> +#endif
> >> +}
> >
> >It seems wrong to declare all the parameters as unused but then use them.
> >Maybe there is a way to have a macro for USED(x) in the #else case
>
> I would suggest we create a macro '#define RTE_UNUSED(x) ((void)x)?, unless
> we have one and I missed it groping though the code.
> >
>
>
> Regards,
> Keith
>
>
>
>
Or just move the #ifdef outside the function and have two versions
#ifdef VFIO_PRESENT
int rte_eal_pci_read_bar(const struct rte_pci_device *device,
void *buf, size_t len,
off_t offset, int bar_idx)
{
const struct rte_intr_handle *intr_handle = &device->intr_handle;
return pci_vfio_read_bar(intr_handle, buf, len, offset, bar_idx);
}
}
#else
int rte_eal_pci_read_bar(const struct rte_pci_device *device __rte_unused,
void *buf __rte_unused,
size_t len __rte_unused,
off_t offset __rte_unused,
int bar_idx __rte_unused)
{
return 0; /* UIO's not applicable */
}
#endif
