[PATCH v9 01/14] common/idpf: introduce common library

[Andrew Rybchenko]

On 10/21/22 15:35, Xing, Beilei wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru>
>> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 2:40 PM
>> To: Guo, Junfeng <junfeng.guo at intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
>> <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu at intel.com>; Xing, Beilei
>> <beilei.xing at intel.com>
>> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Wang, Xiao W <xiao.w.wang at intel.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 01/14] common/idpf: introduce common library
>>
>> On 10/21/22 08:18, Junfeng Guo wrote:
>>> Introduce common library for IDPF (Infrastructure Data Path Function)
>>> PMD.
>>>
>>> Also add OS specific implementation about some MACRO definitions and
>>> small functions which are specific for DPDK.
>>
>> Common drivers are required when different class drivers need to share
>> some code. So, it must be expalined here why do you create common driver
>> instead of usage of base/ driver in your net driver.
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> Thanks for all your comments.
> The common driver will be also used in another PMD which should be upstream in 23.03, so we create it.
> 
>>
>> Note that common driver is a DPDK driver and it must follow DPDK coding
>> style. If the code is actually shared with something else and do not follow
>> DPDK coding style from the very beginning (since it is an existing code), it
>> should be in base/ subdir in either common driver or net driver.
> 
> The common driver is a BSD license release provided by Intel internal team, basically we won't change it. It's the same process as Intel other PMDs, such as base driver of iavf, etc.
> Is it OK if it's in common/idpf/base/ folder?

If so, yes, it should be there. Some common DPDK-specifics bits
could be  in common/idpf, but code shared with other teams
should be in base/.

> 
>>
>> Also you should not use own trivial wrappers for DPDK API in DPDK-specific
>> code. It just complicates reading.
>> E.g. BIT() vs RTE_BIT32().
> 
> Make sense, will try my best to address all your comments in the next version.
> Thanks again.
> 
>>
>> So, I need an answer on above questions before I continue review.
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Beilei Xing <beilei.xing at intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Wang <xiao.w.wang at intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Junfeng Guo <junfeng.guo at intel.com>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/common/idpf/idpf_alloc.h
>>> b/drivers/common/idpf/idpf_alloc.h
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000000..bc054851b3
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/drivers/common/idpf/idpf_alloc.h
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
>>> + * Copyright(c) 2001-2022 Intel Corporation  */
>>> +
>>> +#ifndef _IDPF_ALLOC_H_
>>> +#define _IDPF_ALLOC_H_
>>> +
>>> +/* Memory types */
>>
>> If it is a DPDK-specific driver and it is an interface provided by common driver,
>> it should use Doxygen-style comments to be a part of genereated API
>> documentation.
>