[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 08/16] Add support for mapping devices through VFIO.

[Thomas Monjalon]

2014-05-22 12:06, Burakov, Anatoly:
> > We should discuss a way to request igb_uio or VFIO binding of a device.
> 
> Why? The device can either be bound to VFIO or igb_uio. So unless you want
> binding code in DPDK EAL (to avoid which the
> pci_unbind/igb_uio_bind/dpdk_bind script was created in the first place), I
> see no point in that. The dpdk_bind script already does that (you bind
> either to igb_uio or to vfio-pci).

Yes, in some environments, it could be easier to be able to configure devices 
directly on application command line instead of having to call a python 
script.
I think having a clear and extendable syntax to configure devices in command 
line could greatly improve usability. But it can be another step.

> > This whole socket communication deserves a separated patch with protocol
> > description.
> 
> Agreed, I'll break it up and provide a more detailed explanation.

Thanks.

> > By the way, I'm not a big fan of the suffix "_socket" which can be
> > misleading. But I have no other good naming idea.
> 
> Would _mp_socket do?

What do you think of _mp_sync or _mp_conf?
Usage of the socket is to synchronize VFIO config between processes, right?

> > So we have another thread to manage.
> > I don't see where it is spawned?
> 
> In rte_eal_pci_init().

Oh yes. Do you think you could merge the thread spawning in the patch adding 
it?

> > You are defining some variables in a .h file. I think it is a problem.
> 
> Well, they need to be shared between several .c files.

So you should use an "extern" trick in order to have only one instance of the 
variables. But I think it's not a good practice.
You probably need to group functions using these variables in one .c file.
Or do I miss something?

> > Here are some other relevant errors from checkpatch.pl:
> Thanks, I'll fix those.

Thank you
-- 
Thomas