On 04/02/2018 01:46 PM, Zhihong Wang wrote:
+int
+rte_vdpa_register_device(struct rte_vdpa_dev_addr *addr,
+ struct rte_vdpa_dev_ops *ops)
+{
+ struct rte_vdpa_device *dev;
+ char device_name[MAX_VDPA_NAME_LEN];
+ int i;
+
+ if (vdpa_device_num >= MAX_VHOST_DEVICE)
+ return -1;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < MAX_VHOST_DEVICE; i++) {
+ if (vdpa_devices[i] && is_same_vdpa_device(addr,
+ &vdpa_devices[i]->addr))
+ return -1;
+ }
For consistency, I changed above check to look like same one in
_find_device_id:
for (i = 0; i < MAX_VHOST_DEVICE; i++) {
dev = vdpa_devices[i];
if (dev && is_same_vdpa_device(&dev->addr, addr))
return -1;
}
+
+ for (i = 0; i < MAX_VHOST_DEVICE; i++) {
+ if (vdpa_devices[i] == NULL)
+ break;
+ }
+
+ sprintf(device_name, "vdpa-dev-%d", i);
+ dev = rte_zmalloc(device_name, sizeof(struct rte_vdpa_device),
+ RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE);
+ if (!dev)
+ return -1;
+
+ memcpy(&dev->addr, addr, sizeof(struct rte_vdpa_dev_addr));
+ dev->ops = ops;
+ vdpa_devices[i] = dev;
+ vdpa_device_num++;
+
+ return i;
+}
+
+int
+rte_vdpa_unregister_device(int did)
+{
+ if (did < 0 || did >= MAX_VHOST_DEVICE || vdpa_devices[did] == NULL)
+ return -1;
+
+ rte_free(vdpa_devices[did]);
+ vdpa_devices[did] = NULL;
+ vdpa_device_num--;
+
+ return did;
+}
+
+int
+rte_vdpa_find_device_id(struct rte_vdpa_dev_addr *addr)
+{
+ struct rte_vdpa_device *dev;
+ int i;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < MAX_VHOST_DEVICE; ++i) {
+ dev = vdpa_devices[i];
+ if (dev && is_same_vdpa_device(&dev->addr, addr) == 0)
+ return i;
+ }
+
+ return -1;
+}
+
