From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 607D5A0679 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 17:17:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D6494C8D; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 17:17:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F9C3572 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 17:17:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9486020CE1; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 11:17:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 01 Apr 2019 11:17:38 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=PGFvnQ1SeXUmk3pN74BVF6iqbdhd8SLzEEwf2YesYbA=; b=qG3yTL/dINhZ dgV5RvcXi0tvCZgLqxSCXNaYmcpmgt0WRTccy0shCic+28qDQ87Re5wryUAgWeYd VK3cqz7CI1S5nbeCCnKQrQVpE2XDmg3+DCy0Av8vP0w7m/URWqTH9FPmks8gkSsv a+c35UOkiTPO6ex5HmqgwvBM6xW3XXA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=PGFvnQ1SeXUmk3pN74BVF6iqbdhd8SLzEEwf2YesY bA=; b=ekAYdOKjctZ3clJdgNdewSC4W0PSk5TqFbTcQ47LztMn6tIyGGFJQROhk Rzh8fdnc2DakHhQvFvW8qpip1T5ZQRLaivsKpqocwxDnD0WqBmhVoRzew7UwN1J8 QwIFovhjkd63WVNmQx3vr5Onu02iU3CuhXxKu9rkBvV5vh2x0Yv2+6KKQcpDO+CJ WnrBiqe50jhrOU4Gw3RzB5A4Umbtud/o22WtE+PdBm8rBM0yyM2A0f/8pIvYXUE7 8vqJG8dZwaqwnMQ0XjfJr/vxdjKHVSJ8ySZ+8FVwj7hZGbOdvhOsaRL7vwdO8GH4 NK2sKHvf4AniZBykjhJBlun9ht7sA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedutddrleeggdekhecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhho mhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DDD0210391; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 11:17:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: gaetan.rivet@6wind.com, Ferruh Yigit , Andrew Rybchenko , dev@dpdk.org Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2019 17:17:35 +0200 Message-ID: <21018304.OXf2jst79b@xps> In-Reply-To: <20190401075851.4908488a@shemminger-XPS-13-9360> References: <20181130002716.27325-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <20190401022700.1570-2-thomas@monjalon.net> <20190401075851.4908488a@shemminger-XPS-13-9360> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] ethdev: simplify port state comparisons 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Message-ID: <20190401151735.jVs0c5-XoBAH2gSFaq61sZmX3_bELGWR1zL1EfQvTYA@z> 01/04/2019 16:58, Stephen Hemminger: > On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 04:26:57 +0200 > Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c > > index 10bdfb37e..33cffc498 100644 > > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c > > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c > > @@ -330,8 +330,7 @@ uint16_t > > rte_eth_find_next(uint16_t port_id) > > { > > while (port_id < RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS && > > - rte_eth_devices[port_id].state != RTE_ETH_DEV_ATTACHED && > > - rte_eth_devices[port_id].state != RTE_ETH_DEV_REMOVED) > > + rte_eth_devices[port_id].state == RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED) > > For some applications that iterate over ports this is a hot path. Really? > What about keeping an unused port bit mask and using ffs (in the future)? I don't understand your proposal. Please could you elaborate? Do you agree on this patch anyway?