From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ferruh Yigit Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ethdev: add siblings iterators Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 15:47:42 +0000 Message-ID: <0f5b0dc3-05c6-0f64-1643-7fc23aebfc0a@intel.com> References: <20181130002716.27325-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <20190220221051.7928-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <20190220221051.7928-3-thomas@monjalon.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Thomas Monjalon , Andrew Rybchenko Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C86A3 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 16:47:44 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20190220221051.7928-3-thomas@monjalon.net> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 2/20/2019 10:10 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > If multiple ports share the same hardware device (rte_device), > they are siblings and can be found thanks to the new functions > and loop macros. > One iterator takes a port id as reference, > while the other one directly refers to the parent device. > > The ownership is not checked because siblings may have > different owners. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon > --- > lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c | 20 +++++++++++ > lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev_version.map | 2 ++ > 3 files changed, 68 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c > index b3b2fb1dba..42154787f8 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c > @@ -340,6 +340,26 @@ rte_eth_find_next(uint16_t port_id) > return port_id; > } > > +uint16_t __rte_experimental Do we need _rte_experimental on function definitions? I guess only in .h file, function declaration is enough. > +rte_eth_find_next_of(uint16_t port_id, const struct rte_device *parent) Out of curiosity, what '_of' refers to? > +{ > + while (port_id < RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS && > + rte_eth_devices[port_id].state == RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED && > + rte_eth_devices[port_id].device != parent) > + port_id++; Is this logic correct, or am I missing something. When port status is ATTACHED, check will return false and exit from loop without checking if the 'device' is same. +1 to Gaetan's suggestion to use 'rte_eth_find_next()', which moves status concern to that function. > + > + if (port_id >= RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS) > + return RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS; > + > + return port_id; > +} > + > +uint16_t __rte_experimental > +rte_eth_find_next_sibling(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t ref) I think better to say 'ref_port_id' to clarify what we expect here is a port_id > +{ > + return rte_eth_find_next_of(port_id, rte_eth_devices[ref].device); This is a public API, shouldn't we check if 'ref' if valid port_id value, before accessing the '.device' field? > +} > + > static void > rte_eth_dev_shared_data_prepare(void) > { > diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h > index a3c864a134..a7c5c36277 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.h > @@ -1383,6 +1383,52 @@ uint16_t rte_eth_find_next(uint16_t port_id); > #define RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(p) \ > RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV_OWNED_BY(p, RTE_ETH_DEV_NO_OWNER) > > +/** > + * Iterates over ethdev ports of a specified device. > + * > + * @param port_id_start > + * The id of the next possible valid port. > + * @param parent > + * The generic device behind the ports to iterate. > + * @return > + * Next port id of the device, RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS if there is none. Can return 'port_id_start', right? Should it be documented as it is done in below 'next_sibling' one? > + */ > +__rte_experimental > +uint16_t rte_eth_find_next_of(uint16_t port_id_start, > + const struct rte_device *parent); > + > +/** > + * Macro to iterate over all ethdev ports sharing the same rte_device > + * as the specified port. 'specified port'? No port specified, a device pointer is specified. > + * Note: the specified port is part of the loop iterations. > + */ Does it make sense to clarify what 'p' is and what 'parent' is as we do in function doxygen comments? Since these are macros, harder to grasp the types, I think better to describe more in macro documentation. > +#define RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV_OF(p, parent) \ > + for (p = rte_eth_find_next_of(0, parent); \ > + p < RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS; \ > + p = rte_eth_find_next_of(p + 1, parent)) > + > +/** > + * Iterates over sibling ethdev ports (i.e. sharing the same rte_device). > + * > + * @param port_id_start > + * The id of the next possible valid sibling port. > + * @param ref > + * The id of a reference port to compare rte_device with. > + * @return > + * Next sibling port id (or ref itself), RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS if there is none. > + */ > +__rte_experimental > +uint16_t rte_eth_find_next_sibling(uint16_t port_id_start, uint16_t ref); > + > +/** > + * Macro to iterate over all ethdev ports sharing the same rte_device > + * as the specified port. > + * Note: the specified port is part of the loop iterations. > + */ > +#define RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV_SIBLING(p, ref) \ > + for (p = rte_eth_find_next_sibling(0, ref); \ > + p < RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS; \ > + p = rte_eth_find_next_sibling(p + 1, ref)) > > /** > * @warning > diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev_version.map b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev_version.map > index 92ac3de250..b37a4167d7 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev_version.map > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev_version.map > @@ -245,6 +245,8 @@ EXPERIMENTAL { > rte_eth_dev_owner_set; > rte_eth_dev_owner_unset; > rte_eth_dev_rx_intr_ctl_q_get_fd; > + rte_eth_find_next_of; > + rte_eth_find_next_sibling; > rte_eth_switch_domain_alloc; > rte_eth_switch_domain_free; > rte_flow_conv; >