> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monja...@6wind.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 4:50 AM
> To: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.j...@nxp.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/9] eal/bus: introduce bus abstraction
>
> 2017-01-17 19:07, Shreyansh Jain:
> > +void
> > +rte_bus_register(struct rte_bus *bus)
> > +{
> > + RTE_VERIFY(bus);
> > + RTE_VERIFY(bus->name && strlen(bus->name));
> > +
> > + TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(&rte_bus_list, bus, next);
> > + RTE_LOG(INFO, EAL, "Registered [%s] bus.\n", bus->name);
>
> I think it should be a debug log.
I thought it should be visible to user/app which buses exists parallel to the
information about the detected devices.
But, no strong opinion on this - I will change in v9.
>
> > +/* unregister a bus */
> > +void
> > +rte_bus_unregister(struct rte_bus *bus)
>
> I appreciate the effort for commenting, but I think the function name
> is self describing.
Ok. I will remove the comment. (as well as similar occurences.
>
> > +/**
> > + * @file
> > + *
> > + * RTE PMD Bus Abstraction interfaces
>
> RTE PMD?
> I would say "DPDK device bus interface"
Yes, that is an oversight. PMD is irrelevant here.
>
> > +DPDK_17.02 {
> > + global:
> > +
> > + rte_bus_list;
>
> Why the bus list is exported?
> If it is for testing purpose, I wonder wether it is worth to do it.
I have modeled the test cases on the lines of test_pci and it worked on actual
pci device lists. Though, it is very much possible to not even touch the actual
lists (in either, bus or pci test cases).
I can easily remove the usage of actual list in test_bus.
