On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 10:32:56PM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 05:17:12PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:22:17AM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > > This patch implements northbound eventdev API interface using
> > > southbond driver interface
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>
> > > ---
> > > + /* Re allocate memory to store queue priority */
> > > + queues_prio = dev->data->queues_prio;
> > > + queues_prio = rte_realloc(queues_prio,
> > > + sizeof(queues_prio[0]) * nb_queues,
> > > + RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE);
> > > + if (queues_prio == NULL) {
> > > + RTE_EDEV_LOG_ERR("failed to realloc queue priority,"
> > > + " nb_queues %u", nb_queues);
> > > + return -(ENOMEM);
> > > + }
> > > + dev->data->queues_prio = queues_prio;
> > > +
> > > + if (nb_queues > old_nb_queues) {
> > > + uint8_t new_qs = nb_queues - old_nb_queues;
> > > +
> > > + memset(queues + old_nb_queues, 0,
> > > + sizeof(queues[0]) * new_qs);
> > > + memset(queues_prio + old_nb_queues, 0,
> > > + sizeof(queues_prio[0]) * new_qs);
> > > + }
> > > + } else if (dev->data->queues != NULL && nb_queues == 0) {
> > > + RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->queue_release, -ENOTSUP);
> > > +
> > > + queues = dev->data->queues;
> > > + for (i = nb_queues; i < old_nb_queues; i++)
> > > + (*dev->dev_ops->queue_release)(queues[i]);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + dev->data->nb_queues = nb_queues;
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > While the ports array makes sense to have available at the top level of
> > the API and allocated from rte_eventdev.c, I'm not seeing what the value
> > of having the queues allocated at that level is. The only time the queue
> > array is indexed by eventdev layer is when releasing a queue. Therefore,
> > I suggest just saving the number of queues for sanity checking and let
> > the queue array allocation and freeing be handled entirely in the
> > drivers themselves.
>
> I thought it would be useful for other drivers. I agree, If something is not
> common across all the driver lets remove it from common code.
> I will remove it in v3
>
It's not a big deal for us - just an extra assignment we need to do in
our code path, so if it provides benefit for your driver, leave it in. I
just found it strange that that array was never really used by the
eventdev APIs, which is why I thought it might be better as internal
only.
/Bruce
