Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] doc: announce rte_dev_probe() API change

[Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>]

On 6/11/20 10:08 AM, Gaëtan Rivet wrote:
> On 08/06/20 17:53 +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>> In order to simplify the use of rte_dev_probe() and
>> rte_dev_remove() by applications, rte_dev_probe() will
>> return a reference on the rte_device stating DPDK v20.11.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst | 5 +++++
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>> index 0bee924255..47151eac0b 100644
>> --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>> +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
>> @@ -138,3 +138,8 @@ Deprecation Notices
>>    driver probe scheme. The legacy virtio support will be available through
>>    the existing VFIO/UIO based kernel driver scheme.
>>    More details at https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/69351/
> 
> On the principle ok, formulation seems heavy though (but I'm not a
> native speaker so ymmv...):
> 
>> +
>> +* eal: Change ``rte_dev_probe`` API to return a pointer on the probed
>> +  rte_device or NULL instead of 0 or an error code in DPDK v20.11.
> 
> The 'in DPDK v20.11' is confusing here (it could equally apply to first
> or second part of the sentence). Given the context it's obvious, but
> maybe:
> 
> Change ``rte_dev_probe`` API in DPDK v20.11 to return a pointer on ...
> 
>> +                                                                   This
>> +  change will help calling application in avoiding to iterate the devices
>> +  list when willing to call rte_dev_remove() later.
> 
> How about:
> 
>    This change will allow applications avoid iterating on devices after a
>    probe to get access to the new rte_device.
> 

Good suggestions, I'll fix that.

Thanks,
Maxime