From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] ethdev: simplify port state
	comparisons
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2019 17:17:35 +0200
Message-ID: <21018304.OXf2jst79b@xps>
References: <20181130002716.27325-1-thomas@monjalon.net>
 <20190401022700.1570-2-thomas@monjalon.net>
 <20190401075851.4908488a@shemminger-XPS-13-9360>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: gaetan.rivet@6wind.com, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
 Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>, dev@dpdk.org
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F9C3572
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon,  1 Apr 2019 17:17:39 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <20190401075851.4908488a@shemminger-XPS-13-9360>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

01/04/2019 16:58, Stephen Hemminger:
> On Mon,  1 Apr 2019 04:26:57 +0200
> Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> 
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> > index 10bdfb37e..33cffc498 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> > @@ -330,8 +330,7 @@ uint16_t
> >  rte_eth_find_next(uint16_t port_id)
> >  {
> >  	while (port_id < RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS &&
> > -	       rte_eth_devices[port_id].state != RTE_ETH_DEV_ATTACHED &&
> > -	       rte_eth_devices[port_id].state != RTE_ETH_DEV_REMOVED)
> > +			rte_eth_devices[port_id].state == RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED)
> 
> For some applications that iterate over ports this is a hot path.

Really?

> What about keeping an unused port bit mask and using ffs (in the future)?

I don't understand your proposal. Please could you elaborate?

Do you agree on this patch anyway?