[dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH] bus/pci: restricted bus scanning to allowed devices

[Sunil Kumar Kori]

Hello, 

It looks  like there is no comment/objection on following patch and it can be merged. 
I would request to @David Marchand, please take care of this towards the merging process for 20.05.


Regards
Sunil Kumar Kori

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sunil Kumar Kori
>Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 11:37 AM
>To: 'Stephen Hemminger' <stephen at networkplumber.org>; Jerin Jacob
>Kollanukkaran <jerinj at marvell.com>; 'dev at dpdk.org' <dev at dpdk.org>
>Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH] bus/pci: restricted bus scanning to
>allowed devices
>
>Hello Stephen,
>
>Please provide ack on below change if there is no concern so that it can be
>accepted on 20.05.
>
>Regards
>Sunil Kumar Kori
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Sunil Kumar Kori
>>Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 2:00 PM
>>To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>; Jerin Jacob
>>Kollanukkaran <jerinj at marvell.com>; dev at dpdk.org
>>Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH] bus/pci: restricted bus
>>scanning to allowed devices
>>
>>Hello All,
>>
>>Is there any thought on this ? Otherwise it can be merged.
>>
>>Regards
>>Sunil Kumar Kori
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Sunil Kumar Kori
>>>Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 2:13 PM
>>>To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>; Jerin Jacob
>>>Kollanukkaran <jerinj at marvell.com>
>>>Subject: FW: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH] bus/pci: restricted bus
>>>scanning to allowed devices
>>>
>>>Hello Stephen,
>>>
>>>Can you please look into this patch or provide your thought in this ?
>>>So that it can be merged within 20.02 release.
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>Sunil Kumar Kori
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Sunil Kumar Kori <skori at marvell.com>
>>>Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:09 PM
>>>To: Sunil Kumar Kori <skori at marvell.com>; Stephen Hemminger
>>><stephen at networkplumber.org>
>>>Cc: dev at dpdk.org
>>>Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH] bus/pci: restricted bus
>>>scanning to allowed devices
>>>
>>>Hello Stephen,
>>>Any suggestions ?
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>Sunil Kumar Kori
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: dev <dev-bounces at dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Sunil Kumar Kori
>>>>Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 4:30 PM
>>>>To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>
>>>>Cc: dev at dpdk.org
>>>>Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH] bus/pci: restricted bus
>>>>scanning to allowed devices
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Regards
>>>>Sunil Kumar Kori
>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>
>>>>>Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 9:43 PM
>>>>>To: Sunil Kumar Kori <skori at marvell.com>
>>>>>Cc: dev at dpdk.org
>>>>>Subject: [EXT] Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] bus/pci: restricted bus
>>>>>scanning to allowed devices
>>>>>
>>>>>External Email
>>>>>
>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>-
>>>>>-
>>>>>> 			/* Create dummy pci device to get devargs */
>>>>>> +			dummy_dev.addr.domain =
>>>>>matches[i].pc_sel.pc_domain;
>>>>>> +			dummy_dev.addr.bus =
>matches[i].pc_sel.pc_bus;
>>>>>> +			dummy_dev.addr.devid =
>matches[i].pc_sel.pc_dev;
>>>>>> +			dummy_dev.addr.function =
>>>>>matches[i].pc_sel.pc_func;
>>>>>> +			dummy_dev.device.devargs =
>>>>>> +
>>>>>	pci_devargs_lookup(&dummy_dev);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +			/* Check that device should be ignored or not
>*/
>>>>>> +			if (pci_ignore_device(&dummy_dev))
>>>>>> +				continue;
>>>>>
>>>>>It seems that you are creating dummy_dev as an alternative to
>>>>>passing just the PCI bus/device/function. Wouldn't be easier to just
>>>>>use BDF instead. Dummy arguments on the stack can lead to more
>>>>>corner cases in the future if device subsystem changes.
>>>>Agreed and initially I have implemented using BDF only instead of
>>>>using dummy device.
>>>>But using that approach, I was not able to use existing APIs to get
>>>>devargs and ignore device.
>>>>I had to write almost same functions to solve the purpose. So just to
>>>>avoid having replica of same code, I followed this approach. Please
>suggest.
>>>>>
>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>> + * Get the devargs of a PCI device.
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * @param pci_dev
>>>>>> + *	PCI device to be validated
>>>>>> + * @return
>>>>>> + *	devargs on succes, NULL otherwise
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +struct rte_devargs *pci_devargs_lookup(struct rte_pci_device
>>>>>> +*pci_dev);
>>>>>
>>>>>Must be marked experimental (or internal).
>>>>>The pci_device should be marked const.
>>>>Okay but If I go with BDF one then this change is not required anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>> + * Validate whether a pci device should be ignored or not.
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * @param pci_dev
>>>>>> + *	PCI device to be validated
>>>>>> + * @return
>>>>>> + *	1 if device is to be ignored, 0 otherwise
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +bool pci_ignore_device(const struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev);
>>>>>
>>>>>ditto
>>>>ditto