On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 03:17:27PM +0100, David Marchand wrote: > On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 at 17:32, Bruce Richardson > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +RTE_EXPORT_INTERNAL_SYMBOL(rte_bus_is_ignored_device) > > > +bool > > > +rte_bus_is_ignored_device(const struct rte_bus *bus, const struct > > > rte_devargs *devargs) > > > +{ > > > + switch (bus->conf.scan_mode) { > > > + case RTE_BUS_SCAN_ALLOWLIST: > > > + if (devargs && devargs->policy == RTE_DEV_ALLOWED) > > > + return false; > > > + break; > > > + case RTE_BUS_SCAN_UNDEFINED: > > > + case RTE_BUS_SCAN_BLOCKLIST: > > > + if (devargs == NULL || devargs->policy != RTE_DEV_BLOCKED) > > > + return false; > > > + break; > > > + } > > > + return true; > > > +} > > > > I think this could do with more comments. Am I right in thinking that > > devargs is NULL on input if the device in question is not referenced by any > > devargs passed to the app? This seems a little obscure form of input > > parameter, so I definitely think it needs documenting. > > Yes the handling of a NULL devargs is implicit, I can add a comment. > > > > Is there any way the search for the device name that returns the devargs > > null/non-null pointer can be similarly generalized? > > I also wondered about that and it would be better, but I stopped > quickly when I looked at the bus specific devargs_lookup functions, > preparing the v2. > > For example with the pci bus, names for pci devices can take various > forms, so the pci bus uses its device specific representation for > identifying the devargs. > rte_pci_device_name(&dev->addr, > dev->name, sizeof(dev->name)); > devargs = pci_devargs_lookup(&dev->addr); > > And: > RTE_EAL_DEVARGS_FOREACH("pci", devargs) { > devargs->bus->parse(devargs->name, &addr); > if (!rte_pci_addr_cmp(pci_addr, &addr)) > return devargs; > } > > I suspect vmbus is the same, with this uuid stuff. > > And others bus need investigation too. > I could try to normalize the devargs names for this lookup.. ? >
That's a nice to have, IMHO. I think if the NULL/non-NULL is properly commented it's good enough for this set. You can probably note the cleanup as a TODO in the code as a further reminder. /Bruce
