Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 01/19] net/ngbe: add build and doc infrastructure

["Jiawen Wu" <jiawenwu@trustnetic.com>]

On July 2, 2021 9:08 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> On 6/17/21 1:59 PM, Jiawen Wu wrote:
> > Adding bare minimum PMD library and doc build infrastructure and claim
> > the maintainership for ngbe PMD.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiawen Wu <jiawenwu@trustnetic.com>
> 
> Just one nit below.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_ethdev.c
> > b/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_ethdev.c new file mode 100644 index
> > 0000000000..f8e19066de
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_ethdev.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> > + * Copyright(c) 2018-2020 Beijing WangXun Technology Co., Ltd.
> > + * Copyright(c) 2010-2017 Intel Corporation  */
> > +
> > +#include <errno.h>
> > +#include <rte_common.h>
> > +#include <ethdev_pci.h>
> > +
> > +static int
> > +eth_ngbe_pci_probe(struct rte_pci_driver *pci_drv __rte_unused,
> > +		struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev)
> > +{
> > +	RTE_SET_USED(pci_dev);
> > +	return -EINVAL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int eth_ngbe_pci_remove(struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev) {
> > +	RTE_SET_USED(pci_dev);
> > +	return -EINVAL;
> > +}
> 
> Why is different style of unused suppression is used
> above: __rte_unused vs RTE_SET_USED'?
> 
> [snip]

I guess, 'pci_drv' will not be used in future implement the probe function.
So I just gave '__rte_unused' when I separated the patches.
Does this have to be corrected?