[dpdk-dev] [RFC v2 1/9] usertools: add DPDK config lib python library

[Wiles, Keith]

> On Nov 16, 2018, at 8:55 AM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net> wrote:
> 
> 16/11/2018 15:37, Burakov, Anatoly:
>> On 16-Nov-18 2:13 PM, Richardson, Bruce wrote:
>>> From: Wiles, Keith
>>>>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 5:49 AM, Burakov, Anatoly
>>>>> On 16-Nov-18 12:45 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>>>>> Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov at intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> This is a placeholder for Python library abstracting away many of
>>>>>>> mundane details DPDK configuration scripts have to deal with. We
>>>>>>> need __init__.py file to make the subdirectory a package so that
>>>>>>> Python scripts in usertools/ can find their dependencies.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov at intel.com>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Doing this a better than current code, but can we go farther?
>>>>>> I would like DPDK to get out of doing binds directly and switch to
>>>>>> using driverctl which also handles persistent rebind on reboot.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Wasn't the objection that it's not available everywhere? (for the
>>>>> record, i have no horse in the race - i don't much care exactly how
>>>>> it's done)
>>>> 
>>>> If it works on FreeBSD and Linux then I am all for it. On windows does it
>>>> support this method too?
>>> 
>>> Binding and unbinding is completely different on each OS. FreeBSD has no overlap
>>> of scripts with Linux, so replacing some of our tools with driverctl won't affect
>>> that OS.
>>> 
>>> /Bruce
>> 
>> ...however, we could abstract that away in our tools, and use 
>> OS-appropriate tools independently of what we're running on. There could 
>> still be value in fixing devbind everyone knows and love to work on all 
>> OS's without too much hassle :)
> 
> Yes, easier script is always better.
> 
> Another thought, I would like we think about integrating binding/unbinding
> code inside EAL and bus drivers, and manage it via the PMDs.
> There could be an option to bind on scan and unbind on rte_dev_remove.
> 

Would it be OK to call the tool from the PMD or are wanting new APIs in DPDK?

> 

Regards,
Keith