From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 646265683 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 11:13:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Mar 2015 02:13:04 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,686,1418112000"; d="scan'208";a="535884519" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.243.20.24]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 04 Mar 2015 02:12:58 -0800 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 04 Mar 2015 10:13:01 +0025 Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 10:13:01 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Raz Amir Message-ID: <20150304101301.GA1468@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <1424932400-66862-1-git-send-email-razamir22@gmail.com> <20150303133246.GB11084@bricha3-MOBL3> <053901d0565a$ac8c36e0$05a4a4a0$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <053901d0565a$ac8c36e0$05a4a4a0$@gmail.com> Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] pci: save list of detached devices, and re-probe during driver unload X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 10:13:10 -0000 On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 11:07:41AM +0200, Raz Amir wrote: > Thank you. > > See answers inline (mostly ack, but not only), and I will send the updated > patch soon. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com] > > > Sent: 03 March 2015 15:33 > > > To: Raz Amir > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] pci: save list of detached devices, and > re- > > > probe during driver unload > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 06:33:20AM +0000, Raz Amir wrote: > > > > Added code that saves the pointers to the detached devices, during > > > > driver loading, and during driver unloading, go over the list, and > > > > re-attach them by calling device_probe_and_attach on each device. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Raz Amir < > razamir22@gmail.com> > > > > > > Couple of minor comments below. Otherwise all looks good to me. > > > > > > Acked-by: Bruce Richardson < > bruce.richardson@intel.com> > > > > --- > > > > lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/nic_uio/nic_uio.c | 26 > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > > > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/nic_uio/nic_uio.c > > > > b/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/nic_uio/nic_uio.c > > > > index 5ae8560..7d702a5 100644 > > > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/nic_uio/nic_uio.c > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/nic_uio/nic_uio.c > > > > @@ -55,6 +55,9 @@ __FBSDID("$FreeBSD$"); > > > > > > > > #define MAX_BARS (PCIR_MAX_BAR_0 + 1) > > > > > > > > +#define MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES 128 > > > > +static device_t detached_devices[MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES] = {}; static > > > > +int last_detached = 0; > > > Maybe num_detached/nb_detached or even just "detached" instead of > > > "last_detached". > > Ack. > > > > > > > > > > > > > struct nic_uio_softc { > > > > device_t dev_t; > > > > @@ -291,14 +294,35 @@ nic_uio_load(void) > > > > if (dev != NULL) > > > > > > We are getting into some serious levels of indentation below, so maybe > flip > > > this condition around and put in a "continue" instead, so that we can > dedent > > > everything below that follows it. > > > > > Ack. > > > > > > for (i = 0; i < NUM_DEVICES; > i++) > > > > if > (pci_get_vendor(dev) == devices[i].vend > > > && > > > > - > pci_get_device(dev) == > > > devices[i].dev) > > > > + > pci_get_device(dev) == > > > devices[i].dev) { > > > > + > if (last_detached+1 < > > > MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES) { > > > I don't think you need the +1 here. > > It is needed, otherwise the last object will be added at > MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES position while the last position is > MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES-1. Yes, the last position is MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES-1, but you do the addition of the element to the array using "detached_devices[last_detached++]", i.e. a post-increment, so when last_detached == (MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES-1), you still can fill in an entry. Next time around, when last_detached == MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES it's no longer safe to add, and the condition "last_detached < MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES) will now fail. No +1 or -1 necessary to prevent this. /Bruce