On 7/14/2017 10:12 PM, Jan Blunck wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblu...@infradead.org>
> ---
> lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/rte_eal_version.map | 1 +
> lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_bus.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h | 9 +++++++++
> lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/rte_eal_version.map | 1 +
> 4 files changed, 27 insertions(+)
>
<...>
>
> +int rte_bus_configure(struct rte_bus *bus, const struct rte_bus_conf *conf)
> +{
> + if (bus == NULL)
> + return -1;
> +
> + /* only set bus scan policy if it was unset before */
> + if (bus->conf.scan_mode == RTE_BUS_SCAN_UNDEFINED) {
> + RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, "Bus [%s] scan_mode=%d\n", bus->name,
> + conf->scan_mode);
> + bus->conf.scan_mode = conf->scan_mode;
> + } else if (bus->conf.scan_mode != conf->scan_mode)
> + return -1;
Right now "struct rte_bus_conf" has only field "scan_mode", so this
function implemented as set scan_mode is no issue.
But if in the future, "struct rte_bus_conf" extended to have another
field, this same function will be used and this will be confusing.
What do you think make this function rte_bus_configure_scan_mode(), is
it overkill?
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
<...>
