[PATCH v7 1/8] net/gve/base: introduce base code

[Guo, Junfeng]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at amd.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 17:49
> 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 v7 1/8] net/gve/base: introduce base code
> 
> On 10/21/2022 10:19 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.
> >
> > 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)
> 
> [copy/paste from previous version]
> 
> 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 function is just coming from google code without changes.
So it would be better to keep this unchanged. Thanks!

Hi Ferruh, 
Sorry for the late reply in v6, my mistake.
The replies are edited as drafts but not sent out in the end...
Please help review, really thanks!