[PATCH v6 1/8] net/gve/base: introduce GVE PMD base code

[Guo, Junfeng]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at amd.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 22:41
> 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; Li, Xiaoyun <xiaoyun.li at intel.com>;
> awogbemila at google.com; Richardson, Bruce
> <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; hemant.agrawal at nxp.com;
> stephen at networkplumber.org; Xia, Chenbo <chenbo.xia at intel.com>;
> Zhang, Helin <helin.zhang at intel.com>; Wang, Haiyue
> <haiyue.wang at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/8] net/gve/base: introduce GVE PMD base code
> 
> On 10/20/2022 11:36 AM, Junfeng Guo wrote:
> 
> >
> > The following base code is based on Google Virtual Ethernet (gve)
> > driver v1.3.0 under MIT license.
> > - gve_adminq.c
> > - gve_adminq.h
> > - gve_desc.h
> > - gve_desc_dqo.h
> > - gve_register.h
> > - gve.h
> >
> > The original code is in:
> > https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/compute-virtual-ethernet-
> linux/\
> > tree/v1.3.0/google/gve
> >
> > Note that these code are not Intel files and they come from the kernel
> > community. The base code there has the statement of
> > SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT). Here we just follow the
> > required MIT license as an exception to DPDK.
> 
> Can drop "GVE PMD" from patch title, since 'net/gve/base:' already
> implies it, like:
> net/gve/base: introduce base code

Sure, make sense!
Will update this in the coming version, thanks!

> 
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xiaoyun Li <xiaoyun.li at intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Haiyue Wang <haiyue.wang at intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Junfeng Guo <junfeng.guo at intel.com>
> 
> <...>
> 
> > +static bool gve_adminq_wait_for_cmd(struct gve_priv *priv, u32
> prod_cnt)
> > +{
> > +       int i;
> > +
> > +       for (i = 0; i < GVE_MAX_ADMINQ_EVENT_COUNTER_CHECK; i++) {
> > +               if (ioread32be(&priv->reg_bar0->adminq_event_counter)
> > +                   == prod_cnt)
> 
> Syntax, why not move second half of the equation in above line?
> Unless this is coming from google code and updating it brings
> maintanance cost.

Yes, this is basic adminq processing function and is coming from google code
without any change. Better to keep this unchanged with the origin. Thanks!