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

[Zhang, Qi Z]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xing, Beilei <beilei.xing at intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 8:35 PM
> To: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru>; Guo, Junfeng
> <junfeng.guo at intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing
> <jingjing.wu 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
> 
> 
> 
> > -----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?

+1 , we'd better move the code only shared by DPDK PMD and kernel driver into the base folder, and we add code only shared by different DPDK PMDs in the upper folder in future.

> 
> >
> > 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.