From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB7F98E59
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 04:49:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27])
 by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 26 Jan 2016 19:49:05 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,353,1449561600"; d="scan'208";a="734903900"
Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.66.49])
 by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 26 Jan 2016 19:49:05 -0800
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 11:49:29 +0800
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Message-ID: <20160127034929.GF4257@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <1452832571-6156-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <1453191125-26335-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <1453191125-26335-9-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
 <5347304.e6a00tL54Q@xps13>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5347304.e6a00tL54Q@xps13>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 8/9] virtio: add 1.0 support
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 03:49:07 -0000

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:37:42PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-01-19 16:12, Yuanhan Liu:
> > +#define IO_READ_DEF(nr_bits, type)             \
> > +static inline type                             \
> > +io_read##nr_bits(type *addr)                   \
> > +{                                              \
> > +       return *(volatile type *)addr;          \
> > +}
> > +
> > +#define IO_WRITE_DEF(nr_bits, type)            \
> > +static inline void                             \
> > +io_write##nr_bits(type val, type *addr)                \
> > +{                                              \
> > +       *(volatile type *)addr = val;           \
> > +}
> > +
> > +IO_READ_DEF (8, uint8_t)
> > +IO_WRITE_DEF(8, uint8_t)
> > +
> > +IO_READ_DEF (16, uint16_t)
> > +IO_WRITE_DEF(16, uint16_t)
> > +
> > +IO_READ_DEF (32, uint32_t)
> > +IO_WRITE_DEF(32, uint32_t)
> 
> Yes you can do this.
> But not sure you should.
> 
> > +static inline void
> > +io_write64_twopart(uint64_t val, uint32_t *lo, uint32_t *hi)
> > +{
> > +       io_write32(val & ((1ULL << 32) - 1), lo);
> > +       io_write32(val >> 32,                hi);
> > +}
> 
> When debugging this code, how GDB behave?
> How to find the definition of io_write32() with grep or simple editors?

Okay, I will unfold them.

	--yliu