On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 02:12:48PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2017-01-06 18:16, Yuanhan Liu:
> > +static void
> > +eth_dev_init(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev, uint8_t port_id, const char
> > *name)
> > +{
> > + eth_dev->data = &rte_eth_dev_data[port_id];
> > + eth_dev->attached = DEV_ATTACHED;
> > + eth_dev_last_created_port = port_id;
> > + nb_ports++;
> > +
> > + if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_PRIMARY) {
> > + snprintf(eth_dev->data->name, sizeof(eth_dev->data->name),
> > + "%s", name);
> > + eth_dev->data->port_id = port_id;
> > + }
>
> Why not keeping eth_dev->data filling in rte_eth_dev_allocate?
I could do that.
>
> > +}
> > +
> > struct rte_eth_dev *
> > rte_eth_dev_allocate(const char *name)
> > {
> > @@ -211,12 +226,41 @@ struct rte_eth_dev *
> > }
> >
> > eth_dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
>
> Why not moving this line in eth_dev_init?
Ditto.
>
> > - eth_dev->data = &rte_eth_dev_data[port_id];
> > - snprintf(eth_dev->data->name, sizeof(eth_dev->data->name), "%s", name);
> > - eth_dev->data->port_id = port_id;
> > - eth_dev->attached = DEV_ATTACHED;
> > - eth_dev_last_created_port = port_id;
> > - nb_ports++;
> > + eth_dev_init(eth_dev, port_id, name);
> > +
> > + return eth_dev;
> > +}
>
> [...]
> > +/*
> > + * Attach to a port already registered by the primary process, which
> > + * makes sure that the same device would have the same port id both
> > + * in the primary and secondary process.
> > + */
> > +static struct rte_eth_dev *
> > +eth_dev_attach_secondary(const char *name)
>
> OK, good description
>
> [...]
> > - eth_dev = rte_eth_dev_allocate(ethdev_name);
> > - if (eth_dev == NULL)
> > - return -ENOMEM;
> > + if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_PRIMARY) {
> > + eth_dev = rte_eth_dev_allocate(ethdev_name);
> > + if (eth_dev == NULL)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
>
> You could merge here the rest of primary init below.
Oh, right.
>
> > + } else {
> > + eth_dev = eth_dev_attach_secondary(ethdev_name);
> > + if (eth_dev == NULL) {
> > + /*
> > + * if we failed to attach a device, it means
> > + * the device is skipped, due to some errors.
> > + * Take virtio-net device as example, it could
> > + * due to the device is managed by virtio-net
> > + * kernel driver. For such case, we return a
> > + * positive value, to let EAL skip it as well.
> > + */
>
> I'm not sure we need an example here.
> Is the virtio case special?
Not quite sure, likely not. I was thinking a detailed example helps
people to understand better. I could remove it if you think it's
not necessary.
> nit: "it could due" looks to be a typo
Oops.
--yliu
