From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/13] librte_ether: modify internal
	callback function
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2016 16:56:33 +0200
Message-ID: <1884200.vdWHEKFaxn@xps13>
References: <1475592734-22355-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
 <8021250.9Wl94qBdaq@xps13>
 <8CEF83825BEC744B83065625E567D7C21A08F83F@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Shah, Rahul R" <rahul.r.shah@intel.com>, "Lu,
 Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>, "az5157@att.com" <az5157@att.com>,
 "jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com" <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
To: "Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 049EB591F
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  6 Oct 2016 16:56:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id f193so295367034wmg.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 06 Oct 2016 07:56:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8CEF83825BEC744B83065625E567D7C21A08F83F@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2016-10-06 14:33, Iremonger, Bernard:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 01/13] librte_ether: modify internal
> > callback function
> > 
> > 2016-10-06 12:26, Bernard Iremonger:
> > >  void
> > >  _rte_eth_dev_callback_process(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> > > -	enum rte_eth_event_type event)
> > > +	enum rte_eth_event_type event, void *param)
> > 
> > You need to squash the patches updating the calls to this function.
> > Otherwise, this patch does not compile.
> 
> I will have to squash everything into one patch, separate patches will not compile.

No you can keep a separate patch for the VF event in ixgbe.

> > [...]
> > > +		if (param != NULL)
> > > +			dev_cb.cb_arg = (void *) param;
> > 
> > You are overriding the user parameter.
> 
> Yes, we want to update the user parameter for the RTE_ETH_EVENT_VF_MBOX
> 
> > As it is only for a new event, it can be described in the register API that the
> > user param won't be returned for this event.
> 
> I will add a description in the rte_eth_dev_callback_register  function.
> 
> > But a better design would be to add a new parameter to the callback.
> > However it will be an API breakage.
> 
> I do not want to break the ABI at this point.

Yes, but it can be considered for a later change.

> > > +	RTE_ETH_EVENT_VF_MBOX,  /**< PF mailbox processing callback */
> > 
> > Sorry I do not parse well this line.
> > The event name is VF_MBOX and the comment is about the callback
> > processing this event on PF side?
> > I would suggest this kind of comment: "message from VF received by PF"
> 
> Ok.
> 
> > 
> > [...]
> > >   *  Pointer to struct rte_eth_dev.
> > >   * @param event
> > >   *  Eth device interrupt event type.
> > > + * @param param
> > > + *  Parameter to pass back to user application.
> > > + *  Allows the user application to decide if a particular function
> > > + *  is permitted.
> > 
> > In a more generic case, the parameter gives some details about the event.

Please consider a rewording here, thanks.