[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v14 06/13] eal/linux: standalone intr event fd create support

[Liang, Cunming]

On 7/20/2015 7:39 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-07-20 01:35, Thomas Monjalon:
>> 2015-07-17 14:16, Cunming Liang:
>>> +#ifdef RTE_NEXT_ABI
>>> +extern int
>>> +rte_intr_efd_enable(struct rte_intr_handle *intr_handle, uint32_t nb_efd);
>>> +#else
>>> +static inline int
>>> +rte_intr_efd_enable(struct rte_intr_handle *intr_handle, uint32_t nb_efd)
>>> +{
>>> +	RTE_SET_USED(intr_handle);
>>> +	RTE_SET_USED(nb_efd);
>>> +	return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +#endif
>> [...]
>>> +#ifdef RTE_NEXT_ABI
>>> +extern void
>>> +rte_intr_efd_disable(struct rte_intr_handle *intr_handle);
>>> +#else
>>> +static inline void
>>> +rte_intr_efd_disable(struct rte_intr_handle *intr_handle)
>>> +{
>>> +	RTE_SET_USED(intr_handle);
>>> +}
>>> +#endif
>> [...]
>>> +#ifdef RTE_NEXT_ABI
>>> +static inline int
>>> +rte_intr_dp_is_en(struct rte_intr_handle *intr_handle)
>>> +{
>>> +	return !(!intr_handle->nb_efd);
>>> +}
>>> +#else
>>> +static inline int
>>> +rte_intr_dp_is_en(struct rte_intr_handle *intr_handle)
>>> +{
>>> +	RTE_SET_USED(intr_handle);
>>> +	return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +#endif
>> [...]
>>> +#ifdef RTE_NEXT_ABI
>>> +static inline int
>>> +rte_intr_allow_others(struct rte_intr_handle *intr_handle)
>>> +{
>>> +	return !!(intr_handle->max_intr - intr_handle->nb_efd);
>>> +}
>>> +#else
>>> +static inline int
>>> +rte_intr_allow_others(struct rte_intr_handle *intr_handle)
>>> +{
>>> +	RTE_SET_USED(intr_handle);
>>> +	return 1;
>>> +}
>>> +#endif
>> Why these #else cases?
> Why not totally removing these ifdef in the header and use them in .c?
That's a good idea, will take it. Thanks.
>
>>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/rte_eal_version.map
>>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/rte_eal_version.map
>>> @@ -117,6 +117,10 @@ DPDK_2.1 {
>>>   
>>>   	rte_epoll_ctl;
>>>   	rte_epoll_wait;
>>> +	rte_intr_allow_others;
>>> +	rte_intr_dp_is_en;
>>> +	rte_intr_efd_enable;
>>> +	rte_intr_efd_disable;
>> If RTE_NEXT_ABI is disabled, these symbols do not exist.
>> An alternate .map would be needed.
You're right, will take your suggestion above.