[PATCH v2 12/20] raw/ifpga: inherit lock annotations

[Huang, Wei]

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xu, Rosen <rosen.xu at intel.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 14:29
> To: David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: thomas at monjalon.net; Zhang, Tianfei <tianfei.zhang at intel.com>; Huang,
> Wei <wei.huang at intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 12/20] raw/ifpga: inherit lock annotations
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com>
> > Sent: Friday, February 24, 2023 11:12 PM
> > To: dev at dpdk.org
> > Cc: thomas at monjalon.net; Xu, Rosen <rosen.xu at intel.com>; Zhang,
> > Tianfei <tianfei.zhang at intel.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH v2 12/20] raw/ifpga: inherit lock annotations
> >
> > The checks in those helpers are useless:
> > - all (start/stop/reset/test) callers ensure that dev != NULL,
> > - dev->sd can't be NULL either as it would mean the application is calling
> >   those helpers for a dev pointer that did not pass initialisation,
> >
> > Once the checks are removed, the only thing that remains is calls to
> > the rte_spinlock API, so simply use macros and inherit annotations
> > from the lock API.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/raw/ifpga/afu_pmd_core.c | 17 ++---------------
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/raw/ifpga/afu_pmd_core.c
> > b/drivers/raw/ifpga/afu_pmd_core.c
> > index ddf7a34f33..3ab1f47ac1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/raw/ifpga/afu_pmd_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/raw/ifpga/afu_pmd_core.c
> > @@ -23,21 +23,8 @@ static struct rte_afu_uuid
> > afu_pmd_uuid_map[AFU_RAWDEV_MAX_DRVS+1];
> >  TAILQ_HEAD(afu_drv_list, afu_rawdev_drv);  static struct afu_drv_list
> > afu_pmd_list = TAILQ_HEAD_INITIALIZER(afu_pmd_list);
> >
> > -static inline int afu_rawdev_trylock(struct afu_rawdev *dev) -{
> > -	if (!dev || !dev->sd)
> > -		return 0;
> > -
> > -	return rte_spinlock_trylock(&dev->sd->lock);
> > -}
> > -
> > -static inline void afu_rawdev_unlock(struct afu_rawdev *dev) -{
> > -	if (!dev || !dev->sd)
> > -		return;
> > -
> > -	rte_spinlock_unlock(&dev->sd->lock);
> > -}
> > +#define afu_rawdev_trylock(dev) rte_spinlock_trylock(&dev->sd->lock)
> > +#define afu_rawdev_unlock(dev) rte_spinlock_unlock(&dev->sd->lock)
> >
> >  static int afu_rawdev_configure(const struct rte_rawdev *rawdev,
> >  	rte_rawdev_obj_t config, size_t config_size)
> > --
> > 2.39.2
> 
> 
> It looks good for me.
> Reviewed-by: Rosen Xu <rosen.xu at intel.com>

Agree that pointer check is redundant, rte_spinlock API can be called directly.
Reviewed-by: Wei Huang <wei.huang at intel.com>