[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 13/15] eal: add hotplug add/remove functions

[Thomas Monjalon]

30/06/2017 18:25, Bruce Richardson:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 06:13:51PM +0200, Gaëtan Rivet wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 06:03:17PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 30/06/2017 17:44, Jan Blunck:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Bruce Richardson
> > > > <bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:11:42AM +0200, Gaėtan Rivet wrote:
> > > > >> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:06:03AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > >> > 29/06/2017 20:22, Jan Blunck:
> > > > >> > >  /**
> > > > >> > > + * Hotplug add a given device to a specific bus.
> > > > >> > > + *
> > > > >> > > + * @param busname
> > > > >> > > + *   The bus name the device is added to.
> > > > >> > > + * @param devname
> > > > >> > > + *   The device name. Based on this device name, eal will identify a driver
> > > > >> > > + *   capable of handling it and pass it to the driver probing function.
> > > > >> > > + * @param devargs
> > > > >> > > + *   Device arguments to be passed to the driver.
> > > > >> > > + * @return
> > > > >> > > + *   0 on success, negative on error.
> > > > >> > > + */
> > > > >> > > +int rte_eal_hotplug_add(const char *busname, const char *devname,
> > > > >> > > +                 const char *devargs);
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > After the hotplug, we may need to get the rte_device.
> > > > >> > Should we add a struct **rte_device as parameter,
> > > > >> > or should we add a helper function to get the rte_device
> > > > >> > from busname and devname?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Also possible: return a struct *rte_device and set rte_errno on error.
> > > > >>
> > > > > +1 for this option.
> > > > 
> > > > Given that the caller of this is usually something that injects events
> > > > from the system I wonder what it is going to do with a rte_device
> > > > reference. Additionally to what the caller knows anyway (name,
> > > > numa_node, devargs) it can check if a driver got assigned. Sure the
> > > > caller could upcast conditionally based on the busname ...
> > > > 
> > > > At this point I guess the control plane would anyway want to get
> > > > access to a high-level object, e.g. the rte_ethdev. I believe it is
> > > > better to decouple this through callbacks that can get registered with
> > > > individual buses.
> > > 
> > > I think Gaetan has an example of use of rte_device after plugging
> > > with the failsafe PMD (managing slaves).
> > > Anyway, it can be discussed later with a real example of use if needed.
> > > We have a couple of weeks before freezing the API.
> > 
> > The rte_device should be accessible from the rte_eth_dev anyway so it
> > does not make much difference. As long as a handle on the device is
> > available. It is of course possible to add yet another callback to
> > search the device just plugged, but I don't see a reason here not to do
> > it in one pass.
> > 
> At this point in the process we just need to get in what we can.
> 
> Given there is so much discussion I would suggest we apply what we have
> now, but mark the new APIs as "experimental" at this point. That should
> allow us to test them, and build upon them without holding us back if we
> do need to change them in the next release. Once everyone is happy with
> the final result, we can lock them down then. It seems premature
> to do so now, with the current discussion, but on the other hand
> it seems foolish to not put what work has been done thus far
> into a release as a starting point.

I agree.
Please Jan, add EXPERIMENTAL in the doxygen of the new hotplug API
for your next version. Thanks