> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ananyev, Konstantin > Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 1:37 PM > To: Iremonger, Bernard; Thomas Monjalon > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 1/6] librte_ether: add fields from > rte_pci_driver to rte_eth_dev and rte_eth_dev_data. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Iremonger, > > Bernard > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 12:39 PM > > To: Thomas Monjalon > > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 1/6] librte_ether: add fields from > rte_pci_driver to rte_eth_dev and rte_eth_dev_data. > > > > Hi THomas, > > > > <snip> > > > > > > @@ -424,7 +425,10 @@ rte_eth_dev_socket_id(uint8_t port_id) { > > > > if (!rte_eth_dev_is_valid_port(port_id)) > > > > return -1; > > > > - return rte_eth_devices[port_id].pci_dev->numa_node; > > > > + if (rte_eth_devices[port_id].dev_type == RTE_ETH_DEV_PCI) > > > > + return rte_eth_devices[port_id].pci_dev->numa_node; > > > > + else > > > > + return rte_eth_devices[port_id].data->numa_node; > > > > > > Clearly not the way to go. > > > We should remove the special cases (PCI, PDEV, VDEV) instead of > > > adding more checks. > > > > The dev_type field is not new, just using it now to distinguish between > PCI and non PCI devices. > > > > I have moved some of the RTE_PCI_DRV flags to a new dev_flags field in > > struct rte_eth_dev{}, These flags are independent of the driver type > (PCI or non PCI). > > Do you have view on this new dev_flags field and macros? > > What looks strange here to me, I that we now we duplicate some fields > here? > Let say for PCI devices numa_node would be precent in pci_dev and in data, > right? > If there are some fields that are common for all device types (PCI, VDEV, > etc) why not to create some unified structure for them that would be used > by all device types and remove subsequent fields from pci_dev? > Or alternatively create a union of structs (one struct per device type)? > Then, as was pointed before, we wouldn't these branches by device_type at > all. > Konstantin >
I wouldn't worry so much about the duplicated data, so long as the ethdev APIs only have to look for the data in a single place when necessary. [Some data may be naturally present in the pci_dev structure, for instance, and then be copied by the driver into the common ethdev structure. If however, that copy and duplication can be avoided, great!] /Bruce