On 03/05/2018 05:59 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
On 1/25/2018 5:00 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
From: Ivan Malov <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Ivan Malov <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Andy Moreton <[email protected]>
<...>
@@ -2082,3 +2084,14 @@ RTE_PMD_REGISTER_PARAM_STRING(net_sfc_efx,
SFC_KVARG_STATS_UPDATE_PERIOD_MS "=<long> "
SFC_KVARG_MCDI_LOGGING "=" SFC_KVARG_VALUES_BOOL " "
SFC_KVARG_DEBUG_INIT "=" SFC_KVARG_VALUES_BOOL);
+
+RTE_INIT(sfc_driver_register_logtype);
+static void
+sfc_driver_register_logtype(void)
+{
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = rte_log_register_type_and_pick_level(SFC_LOGTYPE_PREFIX "driver",
+ RTE_LOG_NOTICE);
No benefit of using rte_log_register_type_and_pick_level() here, in this stage
"opt_loglevel_list" will be empty and this will be same as rte_log_register()
That's true except "uniform approach is good". I.e. simply use
rte_log_register_type_and_pick_level() everywhere to make it safe against
code movements.
In fact it was raised during internal review and we kept as you can see it.
Other option is to avoid usage of constructor here at all and move it to
probe.
Yes, it will be tried many times, but there is no harm if it is already
registered.
