From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED9671B657 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 10:19:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3204D722E1; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 08:19:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.36.112.46] (ovpn-112-46.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.46]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84595215CDAF; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 08:19:07 +0000 (UTC) To: Zhihong Wang , dev@dpdk.org Cc: jianfeng.tan@intel.com, tiwei.bie@intel.com, yliu@fridaylinux.org, cunming.liang@intel.com, xiao.w.wang@intel.com, dan.daly@intel.com References: <1517614137-62926-1-git-send-email-zhihong.wang@intel.com> <20180402114656.17090-1-zhihong.wang@intel.com> <20180402114656.17090-3-zhihong.wang@intel.com> From: Maxime Coquelin Message-ID: <1f85f472-3fd3-b988-cc6c-71b1776e4bd0@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 10:19:05 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180402114656.17090-3-zhihong.wang@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.11.54.6 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.2]); Tue, 03 Apr 2018 08:19:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: inspected by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.2]); Tue, 03 Apr 2018 08:19:09 +0000 (UTC) for IP:'10.11.54.6' DOMAIN:'int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com' HELO:'smtp.corp.redhat.com' FROM:'maxime.coquelin@redhat.com' RCPT:'' Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/5] vhost: support selective datapath X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 08:19:10 -0000 On 04/02/2018 01:46 PM, Zhihong Wang wrote: > +int > +rte_vdpa_register_device(struct rte_vdpa_dev_addr *addr, > + struct rte_vdpa_dev_ops *ops) > +{ > + struct rte_vdpa_device *dev; > + char device_name[MAX_VDPA_NAME_LEN]; > + int i; > + > + if (vdpa_device_num >= MAX_VHOST_DEVICE) > + return -1; > + > + for (i = 0; i < MAX_VHOST_DEVICE; i++) { > + if (vdpa_devices[i] && is_same_vdpa_device(addr, > + &vdpa_devices[i]->addr)) > + return -1; > + } For consistency, I changed above check to look like same one in _find_device_id: for (i = 0; i < MAX_VHOST_DEVICE; i++) { dev = vdpa_devices[i]; if (dev && is_same_vdpa_device(&dev->addr, addr)) return -1; } > + > + for (i = 0; i < MAX_VHOST_DEVICE; i++) { > + if (vdpa_devices[i] == NULL) > + break; > + } > + > + sprintf(device_name, "vdpa-dev-%d", i); > + dev = rte_zmalloc(device_name, sizeof(struct rte_vdpa_device), > + RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE); > + if (!dev) > + return -1; > + > + memcpy(&dev->addr, addr, sizeof(struct rte_vdpa_dev_addr)); > + dev->ops = ops; > + vdpa_devices[i] = dev; > + vdpa_device_num++; > + > + return i; > +} > + > +int > +rte_vdpa_unregister_device(int did) > +{ > + if (did < 0 || did >= MAX_VHOST_DEVICE || vdpa_devices[did] == NULL) > + return -1; > + > + rte_free(vdpa_devices[did]); > + vdpa_devices[did] = NULL; > + vdpa_device_num--; > + > + return did; > +} > + > +int > +rte_vdpa_find_device_id(struct rte_vdpa_dev_addr *addr) > +{ > + struct rte_vdpa_device *dev; > + int i; > + > + for (i = 0; i < MAX_VHOST_DEVICE; ++i) { > + dev = vdpa_devices[i]; > + if (dev && is_same_vdpa_device(&dev->addr, addr) == 0) > + return i; > + } > + > + return -1; > +} > +