From: "Tan, Jianfeng" <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
To: "Gaëtan Rivet" <gaetan.rivet@6wind.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com"
<santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com>,
"jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com" <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
"Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] pci: fix check uio bind
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 03:20:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ED26CBA2FAD1BF48A8719AEF02201E3651323814@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171020200822.GJ3596@bidouze.vm.6wind.com>
Hi Gaëtan,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gaëtan Rivet [mailto:gaetan.rivet@6wind.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2017 4:08 AM
> To: Tan, Jianfeng
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com;
> jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com; Burakov, Anatoly
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] pci: fix check uio bind
>
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:47:14AM +0800, Tan, Jianfeng wrote:
> > Hi Gaëtan,
> >
> >
> > On 10/19/2017 7:42 PM, Gaëtan Rivet wrote:
> > >Hi Jianfeng,
> > >
> > >On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:18:29AM +0000, Jianfeng Tan wrote:
> > >>When checking if any devices bound to uio, we did not exclud
> > >>those which are blacklisted (or in the case that a whitelist
> > >>is specified).
> > >>
> > >>This patch fixes it by only checking whitelisted devices.
> > >>
> > >>Fixes: 815c7deaed2d ("pci: get IOMMU class on Linux")
> > >>
> > >>Signed-off-by: Jianfeng Tan <jianfeng.tan@intel.com>
> > >>---
> > >> lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> > >> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
> > >>
> > >>diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci.c
> b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci.c
> > >>index b4dbf95..2b23d67 100644
> > >>--- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci.c
> > >>+++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_pci.c
> > >>@@ -516,8 +516,26 @@ static inline int
> > >> pci_one_device_bound_uio(void)
> > >> {
> > >> struct rte_pci_device *dev = NULL;
> > >>+ struct rte_devargs *devargs;
> > >>+ int check_all = 1;
> > >>+ int need_check;
> > >>+
> > >>+ if (rte_pci_bus.bus.conf.scan_mode == RTE_BUS_SCAN_WHITELIST)
> > >>+ check_all = 0;
> > >> FOREACH_DEVICE_ON_PCIBUS(dev) {
> > >>+ devargs = dev->device.devargs;
> > >>+
> > >>+ need_check = 0;
> > >>+ if (check_all)
> > >Unless I'm mistaken, you will check blacklisted devices as well here.
> >
> > Thank you for pointing out this.
> >
> > I was referring to rte_pci_probe(), which also only check "probe_all" and
> > (devargs && RTE_DEV_WHITELISTED); but turns out it double checks the
> > blacklisted devices in rte_pci_probe_one_driver().
> >
> > I'll fix it.
> >
> > >The condition should be something like:
> > >
> > >if (check_all && devargs == NULL)
> >
> > >Which means that both ifs can be refactored as
> > >
> > >if ((check_all ^ (devargs != NULL)) == 0)
> > > continue;
> > >
> > >Removing need_check. But it can be hard to read.
> >
> > Yes, I prefer to make it easy to understand. Please let me know if you are
> > OK with below code (remove check_all):
> >
> > FOREACH_DEVICE_ON_PCIBUS(dev) {
> > devargs = dev->device.devargs;
> >
> > need_check = 0;
> > switch (rte_pci_bus.bus.conf.scan_mode) {
> > case RTE_BUS_SCAN_UNDEFINED:
> > need_check = 1;
> > break;
> > case RTE_BUS_SCAN_WHITELIST:
> > if (devargs && devargs->policy ==
> > RTE_DEV_WHITELISTED)
> > need_check = 1;
> > break;
> > case RTE_BUS_SCAN_BLACKLIST:
> > if (!devargs || devargs->policy !=
> > RTE_DEV_BLACKLISTED)
> > need_check = 1;
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > if (!need_check)
> > continue;
> > ...
>
> I like the switch, two remarks however:
>
> 1. The SCAN_UNDEFINED basically means blacklist mode for the PCI bus.
> This is the reason probe_all was set by testing for WHITELIST
> mode: either of the other too would thus trigger the blacklist
> behavior.
>
> Thus, I think you could write a fallthrough case for UNDEFINED, that
> would go into the BLACKLIST mode.
>
> 2. For pointers in general I would test against NULL instead of using
> the unary '!'.
> I think it is the general policy in DPDK to always explicitly check
> against the constant value, but I personally think that for booleans
> like need_check the "not" operator is ok.
> So I will only highlight the !devargs :)
Make sense! Will send out a new version as per your above suggestions.
Thanks,
Jianfeng
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-23 3:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-19 11:18 Jianfeng Tan
2017-10-19 11:42 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2017-10-20 16:47 ` Tan, Jianfeng
2017-10-20 20:08 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2017-10-23 3:20 ` Tan, Jianfeng [this message]
2017-10-24 7:44 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Jianfeng Tan
2017-10-24 8:25 ` Gaëtan Rivet
2017-10-26 21:48 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-10-24 8:31 ` santosh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ED26CBA2FAD1BF48A8719AEF02201E3651323814@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com \
--to=jianfeng.tan@intel.com \
--cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=gaetan.rivet@6wind.com \
--cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=santosh.shukla@caviumnetworks.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).