From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80557282
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  6 Feb 2017 03:52:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23])
 by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Feb 2017 18:52:08 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,340,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="1103469313"
Received: from debian.sh.intel.com (HELO debian) ([10.239.67.170])
 by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Feb 2017 18:52:07 -0800
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 10:51:08 +0800
From: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
To: "Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Message-ID: <20170206025108.GA901@debian>
References: <1485311962-62335-1-git-send-email-wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
 <1486346972-30710-1-git-send-email-wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
 <20170206023030.GA21315@debian>
 <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09093B5613B8@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09093B5613B8@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26)
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/ixgbe: clean up rte_eth_dev_info_get
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <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: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 02:52:09 -0000

On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 10:41:28AM +0800, Lu, Wenzhuo wrote:
> Hi Tiwei,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bie, Tiwei
> > Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 10:31 AM
> > To: Lu, Wenzhuo
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/ixgbe: clean up rte_eth_dev_info_get
> > 
> > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 10:09:32AM +0800, Wenzhuo Lu wrote:
> > [...]
> > >  static void ixgbe_dcb_init(struct ixgbe_hw *hw, struct
> > > ixgbe_dcb_config *dcb_config); -static int is_ixgbe_pmd(const char
> > > *driver_name);
> > > +static int is_device_supported(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, struct
> > > +eth_driver *drv);
> > >
> > 
> > Should be:
> > static bool is_device_supported(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, struct eth_driver
> > *drv);
> O, forget to change it. Thanks.
> 
> > 
> > >  /* For Virtual Function support */
> > >  static int eth_ixgbevf_dev_init(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev); @@
> > > -4380,16 +4380,14 @@ static int
> > ixgbevf_dev_xstats_get_names(__rte_unused struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> > >  	ixgbe_add_rar(dev, addr, 0, 0);
> > >  }
> > >
> > > -static int
> > > -is_ixgbe_pmd(const char *driver_name)
> > > +static bool
> > > +is_device_supported(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, struct eth_driver *drv)
> > >  {
> > > -	if (!strstr(driver_name, "ixgbe"))
> > > -		return -ENOTSUP;
> > > +	if (strcmp(dev->driver->pci_drv.driver.name,
> > > +		   drv->pci_drv.driver.name))
> > > +		return FALSE;
> > >
> > 
> > It would be better to use `false' instead of `FALSE'.
> I see both 'false' and 'FALSE' are defined and used. Is there any reason that 'false' is better?
> 

I think `true' and `false' are standard keywords defined and
reserved by C. So I think it would be better to use them if
the return type is `bool'.

Best regards,
Tiwei Bie