[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/7] eal: move virtual device probing into a bus

Wiles, Keith keith.wiles at intel.com
Wed Feb 15 18:10:22 CET 2017


> On Feb 15, 2017, at 11:06 AM, Jan Blunck <jblunck at infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles at intel.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Feb 15, 2017, at 8:15 AM, Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain at nxp.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Just ignore this comment - I am misunderstood something.
>>> 
>>> But another question: Is there specific reason VDEV should be registered/scanned *after* other devices? Is there some specific problem if we do otherwise? (I think this is should be done, but I don't have a specific reason).
>> 
> 
> Just for context: the vdev's are probed after the physical devices
> because of commit f4ce209a ("eal: postpone vdev initialization").
> 
>> Does the bonding driver which uses physical devices need to be registered after physical ones? In Pktgen I noticed the vdev after the physical ports and I could not blacklist them as the bonding driver needed them, which caused the bonding ports to have a greater port number. In the case of pktgen the bonding ports were up around 8 or 10 and caused the display to not show the bonding ports. This is really just a usability problem for the developer using Pktgen. I would like to see the vdev devices first, but as long as the drivers (like bonding) are fine with them being first.
>> 
> 
> The bonding devargs might specify slaves that get attached during
> device probe. If the referenced devices are physical interfaces we
> need to probe them first. This is really a chicken-egg-problem.
> 
> Maybe you could improve the usability in your case and sort the
> virtual devices first or even hide enslaved ports?

The port numbering comes from DPDK and I use that directly, was trying to avoid a translation of real port to Pktgen port :-(

Regards,
Keith



More information about the dev mailing list