> -----Original Message----- > From: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemi...@nvidia.com> > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 14:30 > To: Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.w...@intel.com>; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon > <tho...@monjalon.net> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Parav Pandit <pa...@nvidia.com>; Ray Kinsella > <m...@ashroe.eu>; > andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2] bus/auxiliary: introduce auxiliary bus > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.w...@intel.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 4:41 PM > > To: NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>; Xueming(Steven) Li > > <xuemi...@nvidia.com> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Parav Pandit <pa...@nvidia.com>; Ray Kinsella > > <m...@ashroe.eu>; > andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2] bus/auxiliary: introduce auxiliary bus > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 15:53 > > > To: Xueming Li <xuemi...@nvidia.com> > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Parav Pandit <pa...@nvidia.com>; Ray Kinsella > > > <m...@ashroe.eu>; Wang, Haiyue <haiyue.w...@intel.com>; > > > andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2] bus/auxiliary: introduce auxiliary > > > bus > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > +/** > > > > + * Match function for the driver to decide if device can be handled. > > > > + * > > > > + * @param name > > > > + * Pointer to the auxiliary device name. > > > > + * @return > > > > + * Whether the driver can handle the auxiliary device. > > > > + */ > > > > +typedef bool(*rte_auxiliary_match_t) (const char *name); > > > > > > I disagree with the earlier comment asking for typedef pointer (based > > > on one of my patches). > > > Actually Andrew's suggestion makes sense: > > > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-June/210665.html > > > > > > > I didn't get the error, but the same warning, I missed something ? ;-) > > > > 1. w/o pointer > > > > #include <stdio.h> > > > > typedef int (gpu_malloc_t)(void *dev, size_t size, void **ptr); > > > > static gpu_malloc_t *mlx5_gpu_malloc_fn; > > > > static int > > mlx5_gpu_malloc(size_t size, void **ptr) { > > return 0; > > } > > > > int main() > > { > > mlx5_gpu_malloc_fn = mlx5_gpu_malloc; > > > > mlx5_gpu_malloc_fn(NULL, 0, NULL); > > > > return 0; > > } > > > > > > gcc -Wall fun.c > > fun.c: In function 'main': > > fun.c:15:21: warning: assignment to 'int (*)(void *, size_t, void **)' > > {aka 'int (*)(void *, long > unsigned int, void **)'} from incompatible > > pointer type 'int (*)(size_t, void **)' {aka 'int (*)(long unsigned int, > > void **)'} [- > Wincompatible-pointer-types] > > 15 | mlx5_gpu_malloc_fn = mlx5_gpu_malloc; > > | ^ > > > > > > > > 2. w pointer > > > > #include <stdio.h> > > > > typedef int (*gpu_malloc_t)(void *dev, size_t size, void **ptr); > > > > static gpu_malloc_t mlx5_gpu_malloc_fn; > > > > static int > > mlx5_gpu_malloc(size_t size, void **ptr) { > > return 0; > > } > > > > int main() > > { > > mlx5_gpu_malloc_fn = mlx5_gpu_malloc; > > > > mlx5_gpu_malloc_fn(NULL, 0, NULL); > > > > return 0; > > } > > > > gcc -Wall fun.c > > fun.c: In function 'main': > > fun.c:15:21: warning: assignment to 'gpu_malloc_t' {aka 'int (*)(void *, > > long unsigned int, void > **)'} from incompatible pointer type > > 'int (*)(size_t, void **)' {aka 'int (*)(long unsigned int, void **)'} > > [-Wincompatible-pointer- > types] > > 15 | mlx5_gpu_malloc_fn = mlx5_gpu_malloc; > > | ^ > > > > > > > I don't mind as both suggestion works.
I just want to understand what kind of error the compiler will complain about. ;-) > From usage perspective, it's straightforward for anybody to see an pointer > field and know "that's a > pointer to a something". >
