[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/2] eal: add uevent monitor for hot plug
Guo, Jia
jia.guo at intel.com
Mon Dec 25 09:30:46 CET 2017
On 11/2/2017 5:41 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 04:16:44 +0800
> Jeff Guo <jia.guo at intel.com> wrote:
>
>> +
>> +static int
>> +dev_uev_parse(const char *buf, struct rte_eal_uevent *event)
>> +{
>> + char action[RTE_EAL_UEVENT_MSG_LEN];
>> + char subsystem[RTE_EAL_UEVENT_MSG_LEN];
>> + char dev_path[RTE_EAL_UEVENT_MSG_LEN];
>> + char pci_slot_name[RTE_EAL_UEVENT_MSG_LEN];
>> + int i = 0;
>> +
>> + memset(action, 0, RTE_EAL_UEVENT_MSG_LEN);
>> + memset(subsystem, 0, RTE_EAL_UEVENT_MSG_LEN);
>> + memset(dev_path, 0, RTE_EAL_UEVENT_MSG_LEN);
>> + memset(pci_slot_name, 0, RTE_EAL_UEVENT_MSG_LEN);
>> +
>> + while (i < RTE_EAL_UEVENT_MSG_LEN) {
> Might be simpler, safer, clearer to use rte_strsplit here.
>
> And then have a table of fields rather than open coding the parsing.
>
i think your point must be make sense , but it hardly use rte_strsplit
here , because the tokens which need to parse is splited by '\0', even
more multi adjacent '\0' in the buf witch come from the uevent massage.
>> f+ for (; i < RTE_EAL_UEVENT_MSG_LEN; i++) {
>> + if (*buf)
>> + break;
>> + buf++;
>> + }
>> + if (!strncmp(buf, "libudev", 7)) {
>> + buf += 7;
>> + i += 7;
>> + event->group = UEV_MONITOR_UDEV;
>> + }
>> + if (!strncmp(buf, "ACTION=", 7)) {
>> + buf += 7;
>> + i += 7;
>> + snprintf(action, sizeof(action), "%s", buf);
>> + } else if (!strncmp(buf, "DEVPATH=", 8)) {
>> + buf += 8;
>> + i += 8;
>> + snprintf(dev_path, sizeof(dev_path), "%s", buf);
>> + } else if (!strncmp(buf, "SUBSYSTEM=", 10)) {
>> + buf += 10;
>> + i += 10;
>> + snprintf(subsystem, sizeof(subsystem), "%s", buf);
>> + } else if (!strncmp(buf, "PCI_SLOT_NAME=", 14)) {
>> + buf += 14;
>> + i += 14;
>> + snprintf(pci_slot_name, sizeof(subsystem), "%s", buf);
>> + }
>> + for (; i < RTE_EAL_UEVENT_MSG_LEN; i++) {
>> + if (*buf == '\0')
>> + break;
>> + buf++;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (!strncmp(subsystem, "pci", 3))
>> + event->subsystem = UEV_SUBSYSTEM_PCI;
>> + if (!strncmp(action, "add", 3))
>> + event->type = RTE_EAL_DEV_EVENT_ADD;
>> + if (!strncmp(action, "remove", 6))
>> + event->type = RTE_EAL_DEV_EVENT_REMOVE;
>> + event->devname = pci_slot_name;
>> +
>> + return 0;
> Function always returns 0, why is it not void?
More information about the dev
mailing list