[dpdk-dev] [PATCH V4 1/9] bus: introduce hotplug failure handler

[Thomas Monjalon]

04/07/2018 09:16, Guo, Jia:
> 
> On 7/4/2018 6:21 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 29/06/2018 12:30, Jeff Guo:
> >>   /**
> >> + * Implementation a specific hot plug handler, which is responsible
> >> + * for handle the failure when hot remove the device, guaranty the system
> >> + * would not crash in the case.
> >> + * @param dev
> >> + *	Pointer of the device structure.
> >> + *
> >> + * @return
> >> + *	0 on success.
> >> + *	!0 on error.
> >> + */
> >> +typedef int (*rte_bus_hotplug_handler_t)(struct rte_device *dev);
> > [...]
> >> @@ -211,6 +224,8 @@ struct rte_bus {
> >>   	rte_bus_parse_t parse;       /**< Parse a device name */
> >>   	struct rte_bus_conf conf;    /**< Bus configuration */
> >>   	rte_bus_get_iommu_class_t get_iommu_class; /**< Get iommu class */
> >> +	rte_bus_hotplug_handler_t hotplug_handler;
> >> +						/**< handle hot plug on bus */
> > The name is misleading.
> > It is to handle unplugging but is called "hotplug".
> 
> ok, so i prefer hotplug_failure_handler than hot_unplug_handler, since 
> it is more explicit for failure handle, and more clearly.
> 
> > In order to demonstrate how the handler is used, you should
> > introduce the code using this handler in the same patch.
> >
> 
> sorry, i check the history of rte_bus.h, and the way is introduce ops at 
> first, second implement in specific bus, then come across the usage.
> I think that way clear and make sense. what do you think?
> Anyway, i will check the commit log if is there any misleading.

I think it is better to call ops when they are introduced,
and implement the ops in second step.