Hello Gaetan,
On Thursday 12 October 2017 01:51 PM, Gaetan Rivet wrote:
Re-use existing code, remove incorrect comments.
Signed-off-by: Gaetan Rivet <gaetan.ri...@6wind.com>
---
lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_devargs.c | 8 +++-----
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_devargs.c
b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_devargs.c
index 49cc3b8..1d87cd9 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_devargs.c
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_devargs.c
@@ -153,21 +153,19 @@ rte_eal_devargs_insert(struct rte_devargs *da)
return 0;
}
While trying to work on this patch, I noticed that the complete series
(including "Move PCI away from EAL") is not cleanly applicable on
current master (17.11 RC1). I thought it would be some tiny issues.
But there are some issues which I couldn't pass, Like...
-/* store a whitelist parameter for later parsing */
int
In the this function
-rte_eal_devargs_add(const char *devargs_str)
+rte_eal_devargs_add(const char *dev)
{
struct rte_devargs *devargs = NULL;
- const char *dev = devargs_str;
- /* use calloc instead of rte_zmalloc as it's called early at init */
devargs = calloc(1, sizeof(*devargs));
if (devargs == NULL)
goto fail;
if (rte_eal_devargs_parse(devargs, "%s", dev))
goto fail;
These lines don't exist in your patch
---
59c2ba6c 172) if (bus->conf.probe_mode == RTE_BUS_PROBE_UNDEFINED) {
b631f3b0 173) if (devargs->policy == RTE_DEV_WHITELISTED)
59c2ba6c 174) bus->conf.probe_mode =
RTE_BUS_PROBE_WHITELIST;
b631f3b0 175) else if (devargs->policy == RTE_DEV_BLACKLISTED)
59c2ba6c 176) bus->conf.probe_mode =
RTE_BUS_PROBE_BLACKLIST;
02823c1d 177) }
bf6dea0e 178) TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(&devargs_list, devargs, next);
bf6dea0e 179) return 0;
0215a4c6 180)
---
(Some introduced by the move PCI series, but others like b631f3b0 are
very old ~17.08)
- TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(&devargs_list, devargs, next);
+ if (rte_eal_devargs_insert(devargs))
+ goto fail;
And hence, I don't know whether you intend to insert the above line
after or before checking PROBE.
return 0;
fail:
Maybe I am doing something wrong here - any ideas? Can you send an
updated/rebased version on current master HEAD?
-
Shreyansh
