On 11/6/23 15:29, fengchengwen wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 2023/11/6 18:28, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
On 11/6/23 10:31, Chengwen Feng wrote:
The sfc_kvargs_process() and sfc_efx_dev_class_get() function could
handle both key=value and only-key, so they should use
rte_kvargs_process_opt() instead of rte_kvargs_process() to parse.
Signed-off-by: Chengwen Feng <fengcheng...@huawei.com>
---
drivers/common/sfc_efx/sfc_efx.c | 4 ++--
drivers/net/sfc/sfc_kvargs.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/common/sfc_efx/sfc_efx.c b/drivers/common/sfc_efx/sfc_efx.c
index 2dc5545760..3ebac909f1 100644
--- a/drivers/common/sfc_efx/sfc_efx.c
+++ b/drivers/common/sfc_efx/sfc_efx.c
@@ -52,8 +52,8 @@ sfc_efx_dev_class_get(struct rte_devargs *devargs)
return dev_class;
if (rte_kvargs_count(kvargs, RTE_DEVARGS_KEY_CLASS) != 0) {
- rte_kvargs_process(kvargs, RTE_DEVARGS_KEY_CLASS,
- sfc_efx_kvarg_dev_class_handler, &dev_class);
+ rte_kvargs_process_opt(kvargs, RTE_DEVARGS_KEY_CLASS,
+ sfc_efx_kvarg_dev_class_handler, &dev_class);
LGTM from code point of view, but I'm not sure that I understand the
idea behind handling NULL value in sfc_efx_kvarg_dev_class_handler().
Cc: Vijay
}
rte_kvargs_free(kvargs);
diff --git a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_kvargs.c b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_kvargs.c
index 783cb43ae6..24bb896179 100644
--- a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_kvargs.c
+++ b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_kvargs.c
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ sfc_kvargs_process(struct sfc_adapter *sa, const char
*key_match,
if (sa->kvargs == NULL)
return 0;
- return -rte_kvargs_process(sa->kvargs, key_match, handler, opaque_arg);
+ return -rte_kvargs_process_opt(sa->kvargs, key_match, handler, opaque_arg);
It looks wrong to me since many handlers do not handle NULL string gracefully.
As I understand some handlers where fixed to avoid crash
and correct fix would be to keep rte_kvargs_process() and remove
unnecessary checks for NULL string value.
The scope is large, I suggest creates a new patchset later which remove
unnecessary checks for NULL string value.
I just want to highlight that it will not make this patch correct. So,
Nack
}
int
.
