On 11/2/2017 5:41 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 04:16:44 +0800
Jeff Guo <jia....@intel.com> wrote:
+
+static int
+dev_uev_parse(const char *buf, struct rte_eal_uevent *event)
+{
+ char action[RTE_EAL_UEVENT_MSG_LEN];
+ char subsystem[RTE_EAL_UEVENT_MSG_LEN];
+ char dev_path[RTE_EAL_UEVENT_MSG_LEN];
+ char pci_slot_name[RTE_EAL_UEVENT_MSG_LEN];
+ int i = 0;
+
+ memset(action, 0, RTE_EAL_UEVENT_MSG_LEN);
+ memset(subsystem, 0, RTE_EAL_UEVENT_MSG_LEN);
+ memset(dev_path, 0, RTE_EAL_UEVENT_MSG_LEN);
+ memset(pci_slot_name, 0, RTE_EAL_UEVENT_MSG_LEN);
+
+ while (i < RTE_EAL_UEVENT_MSG_LEN) {
Might be simpler, safer, clearer to use rte_strsplit here.
And then have a table of fields rather than open coding the parsing.
i think your point must be make sense , but it hardly use rte_strsplit
here , because the tokens which need to parse is splited by '\0', even
more multi adjacent '\0' in the buf witch come from the uevent massage.
f+ for (; i < RTE_EAL_UEVENT_MSG_LEN; i++) {
+ if (*buf)
+ break;
+ buf++;
+ }
+ if (!strncmp(buf, "libudev", 7)) {
+ buf += 7;
+ i += 7;
+ event->group = UEV_MONITOR_UDEV;
+ }
+ if (!strncmp(buf, "ACTION=", 7)) {
+ buf += 7;
+ i += 7;
+ snprintf(action, sizeof(action), "%s", buf);
+ } else if (!strncmp(buf, "DEVPATH=", 8)) {
+ buf += 8;
+ i += 8;
+ snprintf(dev_path, sizeof(dev_path), "%s", buf);
+ } else if (!strncmp(buf, "SUBSYSTEM=", 10)) {
+ buf += 10;
+ i += 10;
+ snprintf(subsystem, sizeof(subsystem), "%s", buf);
+ } else if (!strncmp(buf, "PCI_SLOT_NAME=", 14)) {
+ buf += 14;
+ i += 14;
+ snprintf(pci_slot_name, sizeof(subsystem), "%s", buf);
+ }
+ for (; i < RTE_EAL_UEVENT_MSG_LEN; i++) {
+ if (*buf == '\0')
+ break;
+ buf++;
+ }
+ }
+
+ if (!strncmp(subsystem, "pci", 3))
+ event->subsystem = UEV_SUBSYSTEM_PCI;
+ if (!strncmp(action, "add", 3))
+ event->type = RTE_EAL_DEV_EVENT_ADD;
+ if (!strncmp(action, "remove", 6))
+ event->type = RTE_EAL_DEV_EVENT_REMOVE;
+ event->devname = pci_slot_name;
+
+ return 0;
Function always returns 0, why is it not void?
