Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] ethdev: avoid explicit check of valid port state

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

18/04/2019 14:47, Thomas Monjalon:
> 18/04/2019 13:50, Ferruh Yigit:
> > On 4/17/2019 11:59 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > Some port iterations are manually checking against RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED
> > > instead of using the iterators based on rte_eth_find_next().
> > > 
> > > A new macro RTE_ETH_FOREACH_VALID_DEV() is introduced, but kept private
> > > because there should be no need of iterating over all devices in the API.
> > > The public iterators have additional filters for ownership, parent device
> > > or sibling ports.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > > ---
> > > +#define RTE_ETH_FOREACH_VALID_DEV(port_id) \
> > > +	for (port_id = rte_eth_find_next(0); \
> > > +	     port_id < RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS; \
> > > +	     port_id = rte_eth_find_next(port_id + 1))
> > > +
> > 
> > What do you think adding some documentation to the new macro, specially I think
> > documenting the difference between "RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV" and this one can be
> > good otherwise it may confuse people that "RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV" iterates on
> > invalid devices too?
> 
> This one is not part of the API.
> I am not sure what I can document more than "iterating all valid ports"?
> About RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV, it is already documented:
> 	"Macro to iterate over all enabled and ownerless ethdev ports."

OK, let's add a comment to explain the difference:

/*
 * Macro to iterate over all valid ports for internal usage.
 * Note: RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV is different because filtering owned ports.
 */