16/12/2018 13:02, Ophir Munk: > Hi Ilya, > Please find comments inline. > > From: Ilya Maximets <i.maxim...@samsung.com> > > > > Not a full review. Just one comment inline. > > > > Best regards, Ilya Maximets. > > > > On 12.12.2018 2:34, Ophir Munk wrote: > > > Dpdk port representors were introduced in dpdk 18.xx. > > > ..... > > > > > > - rte_eth_dev_close(port_id); > > > + rte_dev = rte_eth_devices[port_id].device; > > > > > > We should not use 'rte_eth_devices' directly because it's internal to DPDK. > > See the discussion here: > > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-November/119198.html > > The discussions mentioned in the link raised pros and cons for using a direct > access to rte_eth_devices[] but was not conclusive. > I am in favor of keeping the direct access to rte_eth_devices array for the > following reasons: > 1. Using rte_eth_dev_info_get() API uses the same pointer to the internal > rte_eth_devices[] array. So actually it is as dangerous as accessing the > array directly. > 2. Theoretically there is logic in using the API as it may have a safer > implementation in the future. However, I talked with Thomans Monjalon - the > maintainer of this API - and he recommended using the direct array access. > Thomas mentioned that this API will be dropped. > > Thomas - can you please share your view on this topic?
I agree with the idea of avoiding direct access to this structure. That's why I wrote a new function specifically for this use case: https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/48429/ About workarounding the direct access with rte_eth_dev_info_get(), I am not sure it is a great idea. In my opinion, it is best to keep the direct access to the array and add a comment about the need to replace it with a proper API. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev