Re: [spp] [spp 03539] Re: [PATCH 0/6] Replace deprecated APIs

[Hideyuki Yamashita <yamashita.hideyuki@po.ntt-tx.co.jp>]

Hello Yasufumi-san,

Thanks for your comments.
Please see inline.

> > Hello Yasufumi-san,
> >
> > Thanks so much for your comments.
> >
> > About your first point, I think the follwing naming may be fit with DPDK
> > and SPP naming conventions, what do you think?
> >
> > attach -> spp_eth_dev_attach
> > detach -> spp_eth_dev_detach
> I think you should not use prefix `spp` without if it defines a behaviour of SPP itself. This function is more essential to attach device.
> 
> For `spp_eth_dev_attach`, You might think similar name from original `rte_eth_dev_attach`, but I think we do not keep the name of deprecated APIs. More simply, how about `dev_attach_by_devargs` instead of?
I have no problem about naming `dev_attach_by_devargs`.

> For `spp_eth_dev_detach`, I think `dev_detach_by_port_id` is more prefer. Other than the name of the function, I am curious why it takes second argument `name` because it is not used in the function.
I have no problem about namign  `dev_detach_by_port_id`.
As you say, second argument is NOT used within the function and I will
remove it from revised version.

> By the way, I am not clear what is the difference between your functions and `rte_eth_dev_attach` defined in `dpdk/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c` exactly. Could you explain about the difference shortly for helping my understanding?
Basically both of those functions uses `rte_eal_hotplug_add` to hotplug
device.

Difference is described as following:
`rte_eth_dev_attach` uses global variable named
eth_dev_last_created_port when retrieving newly created dpdk port while
my new function uses `rte_eth_dev_get_port_by_name` becauase this function is defined outside
of dpdk library and can not retrieve global variable within dpdk library.

BR,
Hideyuki Yamashita
NTT TechnoCross
 
> Thanks
> > About your second point, I appologize about my mistake.
> >
> > Once I get ack for above new naming of two interfaces from you,
> > I will revise my patch set including cover-letter and will send
> > those to mailing list.
> >
> > Thanks for your co-opearation!
> >
> > BR,
> > Hideyuki Yamashita
> > NTT TechnoCorss
> >
> >> On 2018/11/07 14:07, x-fn-spp@sl.ntt-tx.co.jp wrote:
> >>> From: Hideyuki Yamashita <yamashita.hideyuki@po.ntt-tx.co.jp>
> >>>
> >>> >From DPDK-18.08, the follwing APIs become deprecated and
> >>> will be deleted in DPDK18.08.
> >>> - rte_eth_dev_attach()
> >>> - rte_eth_dev_detach()
> >>>
> >>> For rte_eth_dev_attach(), use of rte_eal_hotplug_add() is recommended.
> >>> For rte_eth_dev_detach(), use of rte_eal_hotplug_remove() is recommended.
> >>>
> >>> To follow the above changes, this patch set provides replacement of
> >>> those APIs.
> >> Hideyuki,
> >>
> >> Thank you for suggesting to update to v18.08!
> >>
> >> Could you re-consider the name of function you added by referring conventions of DPDK and SPP? It has almost no means if just `attach` or `detach`. It is preferable to be self explanatory for how your function works.
> >>
> >> Commit messages are also required to be revised. Update for the change of function name and modify invalid descriptions for documentation guidelines.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>> Signed-off-by: Hideyuki Yamashita <yamashita.hideyuki@po.ntt-tx.co.jp>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Naoki Takada <takada.naoki@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> >>>
> >>> Hideyuki Yamashita (6):
> >>>     shared: addition of attach()
> >>>     spp_nfv: replacement of rte_eth_dev_attach()
> >>>     spp_vf:replacement of rte_eth_dev_attach()
> >>>     shared: addition of detach()
> >>>     spp_nfv: replacement of rte_eth_dev_detach()
> >>>     spp_vm: replacement of rte_eth_dev_detach().
> >>>
> >>>    src/nfv/nfv.c       | 12 ++++-----
> >>>    src/shared/common.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>    src/shared/common.h | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>    src/vf/spp_vf.c     |  4 +--
> >>>    src/vm/main.c       |  2 +-
> >>>    5 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>
> >>