> -----Original Message----- > From: Ferruh Yigit <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 22:41 > To: Guo, Junfeng <[email protected]>; Zhang, Qi Z > <[email protected]>; Wu, Jingjing <[email protected]>; Xing, > Beilei <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Li, Xiaoyun <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; Richardson, Bruce > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Xia, Chenbo <[email protected]>; > Zhang, Helin <[email protected]>; Wang, Haiyue > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/8] net/gve/base: introduce GVE PMD base code > > On 10/20/2022 11:36 AM, Junfeng Guo wrote: > > > > > The following base code is based on Google Virtual Ethernet (gve) > > driver v1.3.0 under MIT license. > > - gve_adminq.c > > - gve_adminq.h > > - gve_desc.h > > - gve_desc_dqo.h > > - gve_register.h > > - gve.h > > > > The original code is in: > > https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/compute-virtual-ethernet- > linux/\ > > tree/v1.3.0/google/gve > > > > Note that these code are not Intel files and they come from the kernel > > community. The base code there has the statement of > > SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT). Here we just follow the > > required MIT license as an exception to DPDK. > > Can drop "GVE PMD" from patch title, since 'net/gve/base:' already > implies it, like: > net/gve/base: introduce base code
Sure, make sense! Will update this in the coming version, thanks! > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xiaoyun Li <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Haiyue Wang <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Junfeng Guo <[email protected]> > > <...> > > > +static bool gve_adminq_wait_for_cmd(struct gve_priv *priv, u32 > prod_cnt) > > +{ > > + int i; > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < GVE_MAX_ADMINQ_EVENT_COUNTER_CHECK; i++) { > > + if (ioread32be(&priv->reg_bar0->adminq_event_counter) > > + == prod_cnt) > > Syntax, why not move second half of the equation in above line? > Unless this is coming from google code and updating it brings > maintanance cost. Yes, this is basic adminq processing function and is coming from google code without any change. Better to keep this unchanged with the origin. Thanks!
