From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/9] pci: split match and probe function
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:31:01 +0100
Message-ID: <1982590.t5Omiyb9eb@xps13>
References: <1484647774-28984-1-git-send-email-shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>
 <6385545.1JoApMrEe4@xps13>
 <DB5PR0401MB2054F24F5FAEFA93136E5A30907F0@DB5PR0401MB2054.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com (mail-wm0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A098D586
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:31:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id r126so233497487wmr.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 23:31:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <DB5PR0401MB2054F24F5FAEFA93136E5A30907F0@DB5PR0401MB2054.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <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>

2017-01-18 06:17, Shreyansh Jain:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > 2017-01-17 19:07, Shreyansh Jain:
> > > +static int
> > > +rte_eal_pci_detach_dev(struct rte_pci_driver *dr,
> > > +               struct rte_pci_device *dev)
> > > +{
> > > +       int ret;
> > > +       struct rte_pci_addr *loc;
> > > +
> > > +       if ((dr == NULL) || (dev == NULL))
> > > +               return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > +       ret = rte_pci_match(dr, dev);
> > 
> > I do not understand this function.
> > The driver should be known by the device at this stage.
> > Why specifying a driver as parameter?
> > 
> > I know it is not new in this series, but
> > pci_detach_all_drivers(struct rte_pci_device *dev) makes no sense to me.
> 
> From what I understand, pci_detach_all_drivers is simply a wrapper over the PCI driver list, calling rte_eal_pci_detach_dev for each driver. Considering that all it does is iterate, it is not functionally required.
> 
> But, let me clarify one more thing: There is a possibility that rte_pci_device->pci_driver be directly used in case of detach rather than searching for a driver. This is assuming that before 'detach', a pci_device would link to a valid pci_driver. Is there some caveat in this assumption?

I would say it it always true.
But seeing this code existing makes me hesitates.
I suggest to go with this assumption for RC1 and remove this loop.