Hi Tiwei,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bie, Tiwei
> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 11:08 AM
> To: Lu, Wenzhuo
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/ixgbe: clean up rte_eth_dev_info_get
>
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 10:59:42AM +0800, Lu, Wenzhuo wrote:
> > Hi Tiwei,
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bie, Tiwei
> > > Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 10:51 AM
> > > To: Lu, Wenzhuo
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/ixgbe: clean up
> > > rte_eth_dev_info_get
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 10:41:28AM +0800, Lu, Wenzhuo wrote:
> > > > Hi Tiwei,
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Bie, Tiwei
> > > > > Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 10:31 AM
> > > > > To: Lu, Wenzhuo
> > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/ixgbe: clean up
> > > > > rte_eth_dev_info_get
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 10:09:32AM +0800, Wenzhuo Lu wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > static void ixgbe_dcb_init(struct ixgbe_hw *hw, struct
> > > > > > ixgbe_dcb_config *dcb_config); -static int is_ixgbe_pmd(const
> > > > > > char *driver_name);
> > > > > > +static int is_device_supported(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> > > > > > +struct eth_driver *drv);
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Should be:
> > > > > static bool is_device_supported(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, struct
> > > > > eth_driver *drv);
> > > > O, forget to change it. Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > /* For Virtual Function support */ static int
> > > > > > eth_ixgbevf_dev_init(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev); @@
> > > > > > -4380,16 +4380,14 @@ static int
> > > > > ixgbevf_dev_xstats_get_names(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev
> > > > > *dev,
> > > > > > ixgbe_add_rar(dev, addr, 0, 0); }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -static int
> > > > > > -is_ixgbe_pmd(const char *driver_name)
> > > > > > +static bool
> > > > > > +is_device_supported(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, struct
> > > > > > +eth_driver
> > > > > > +*drv)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > - if (!strstr(driver_name, "ixgbe"))
> > > > > > - return -ENOTSUP;
> > > > > > + if (strcmp(dev->driver->pci_drv.driver.name,
> > > > > > + drv->pci_drv.driver.name))
> > > > > > + return FALSE;
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be better to use `false' instead of `FALSE'.
> > > > I see both 'false' and 'FALSE' are defined and used. Is there any
> > > > reason that
> > > 'false' is better?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think `true' and `false' are standard keywords defined and
> > > reserved by C. So I think it would be better to use them if the return
> > > type is
> `bool'.
> > O, there's no 'bool' in C. You have to define it. The same for 'false' and
> > 'true'.
> >
>
> The `bool', `true' and `false' are all standard keywords defined and reserved
> by
> C, although the stdbool.h is not used in ixgbe.
>
> C adds this support by introducing a new header stdbool.h:
>
> #ifndef __bool_true_false_are_defined
> #define __bool_true_false_are_defined 1
>
> #ifndef __cplusplus
>
> #define false 0
> #define true 1
>
> #define bool _Bool
> #if __STDC_VERSION__ < 199901L && __GNUC__ < 3
> && !defined(__INTEL_COMPILER)
> typedef int _Bool;
> #endif
O, you're talking about C99. _Bool is a keyword added by it. 'bool', 'true',
'false' are not. That's why this header file have to define them.
>
> #endif /* !__cplusplus */
> #endif /* __bool_true_false_are_defined */
>
> Best regards,
> Tiwei Bie
