[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/4] ethdev: add apis to support access device info
Wang, Liang-min
liang-min.wang at intel.com
Thu Jun 25 23:05:04 CEST 2015
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org]
> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 9:44 AM
> To: Wang, Liang-min
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/4] ethdev: add apis to support access
> device info
>
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:22:12 -0400
> Liang-Min Larry Wang <liang-min.wang at intel.com> wrote:
>
> > +int
> > +rte_eth_dev_reg_length(uint8_t port_id)
> > +{
> > + struct rte_eth_dev *dev;
> > +
> > + if ((dev= &rte_eth_devices[port_id]) == NULL) {
> > + PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Invalid port device\n");
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > + }
>
> Some minor nits:
> * for consistency you should add valid port check here.
> * style:
> - don't do assignment in if() unless it really helps readability
> - need whitespace
>
> if (!rte_eth_dev_is_valid_port(portid)) {
> PMD_DEBUG_TRACE("Invalid port_id=%d\n", port_id);
> return -ENODEV;
> }
>
> dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
> if (dev == NULL) {
> PMD_DEBUG("Invalid port device\n");
> return -ENODEV:
> }
> ...
>
> This code pattern is so common it really should be a function.
>
> dev = rte_eth_dev_get(port_id);
> if (dev == NULL) {
> PMD_DEBUG("Invalid port device\n");
> return -ENODEV;
> }
>
> And then add a macro to generate this??
This is used through-out the rte_ethdev.c, should it be done to the entire file?
More information about the dev
mailing list