Hello, It looks like there is no comment/objection on following patch and it can be merged. I would request to @David Marchand, please take care of this towards the merging process for 20.05.
Regards Sunil Kumar Kori >-----Original Message----- >From: Sunil Kumar Kori >Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 11:37 AM >To: 'Stephen Hemminger' <[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob >Kollanukkaran <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]> >Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH] bus/pci: restricted bus scanning to >allowed devices > >Hello Stephen, > >Please provide ack on below change if there is no concern so that it can be >accepted on 20.05. > >Regards >Sunil Kumar Kori > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Sunil Kumar Kori >>Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 2:00 PM >>To: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob >>Kollanukkaran <[email protected]>; [email protected] >>Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH] bus/pci: restricted bus >>scanning to allowed devices >> >>Hello All, >> >>Is there any thought on this ? Otherwise it can be merged. >> >>Regards >>Sunil Kumar Kori >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Sunil Kumar Kori >>>Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 2:13 PM >>>To: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob >>>Kollanukkaran <[email protected]> >>>Subject: FW: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH] bus/pci: restricted bus >>>scanning to allowed devices >>> >>>Hello Stephen, >>> >>>Can you please look into this patch or provide your thought in this ? >>>So that it can be merged within 20.02 release. >>> >>>Regards >>>Sunil Kumar Kori >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Sunil Kumar Kori <[email protected]> >>>Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:09 PM >>>To: Sunil Kumar Kori <[email protected]>; Stephen Hemminger >>><[email protected]> >>>Cc: [email protected] >>>Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH] bus/pci: restricted bus >>>scanning to allowed devices >>> >>>Hello Stephen, >>>Any suggestions ? >>> >>>Regards >>>Sunil Kumar Kori >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: dev <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Sunil Kumar Kori >>>>Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 4:30 PM >>>>To: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]> >>>>Cc: [email protected] >>>>Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH] bus/pci: restricted bus >>>>scanning to allowed devices >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Regards >>>>Sunil Kumar Kori >>>> >>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>From: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]> >>>>>Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 9:43 PM >>>>>To: Sunil Kumar Kori <[email protected]> >>>>>Cc: [email protected] >>>>>Subject: [EXT] Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] bus/pci: restricted bus >>>>>scanning to allowed devices >>>>> >>>>>External Email >>>>> >>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>- >>>>>- >>>>>> /* Create dummy pci device to get devargs */ >>>>>> + dummy_dev.addr.domain = >>>>>matches[i].pc_sel.pc_domain; >>>>>> + dummy_dev.addr.bus = >matches[i].pc_sel.pc_bus; >>>>>> + dummy_dev.addr.devid = >matches[i].pc_sel.pc_dev; >>>>>> + dummy_dev.addr.function = >>>>>matches[i].pc_sel.pc_func; >>>>>> + dummy_dev.device.devargs = >>>>>> + >>>>> pci_devargs_lookup(&dummy_dev); >>>>>> + >>>>>> + /* Check that device should be ignored or not >*/ >>>>>> + if (pci_ignore_device(&dummy_dev)) >>>>>> + continue; >>>>> >>>>>It seems that you are creating dummy_dev as an alternative to >>>>>passing just the PCI bus/device/function. Wouldn't be easier to just >>>>>use BDF instead. Dummy arguments on the stack can lead to more >>>>>corner cases in the future if device subsystem changes. >>>>Agreed and initially I have implemented using BDF only instead of >>>>using dummy device. >>>>But using that approach, I was not able to use existing APIs to get >>>>devargs and ignore device. >>>>I had to write almost same functions to solve the purpose. So just to >>>>avoid having replica of same code, I followed this approach. Please >suggest. >>>>> >>>>>> +/** >>>>>> + * Get the devargs of a PCI device. >>>>>> + * >>>>>> + * @param pci_dev >>>>>> + * PCI device to be validated >>>>>> + * @return >>>>>> + * devargs on succes, NULL otherwise >>>>>> + */ >>>>>> +struct rte_devargs *pci_devargs_lookup(struct rte_pci_device >>>>>> +*pci_dev); >>>>> >>>>>Must be marked experimental (or internal). >>>>>The pci_device should be marked const. >>>>Okay but If I go with BDF one then this change is not required anyway. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> + >>>>>> +/** >>>>>> + * Validate whether a pci device should be ignored or not. >>>>>> + * >>>>>> + * @param pci_dev >>>>>> + * PCI device to be validated >>>>>> + * @return >>>>>> + * 1 if device is to be ignored, 0 otherwise >>>>>> + */ >>>>>> +bool pci_ignore_device(const struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev); >>>>> >>>>>ditto >>>>ditto
