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

Shreyansh Jain shreyansh.jain at nxp.com
Wed Feb 15 15:15:39 CET 2017


On Wednesday 15 February 2017 07:41 PM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 February 2017 03:32 PM, Jan Blunck wrote:
>> This is a refactoring of the virtual device probing which moves into into
>> a proper bus structure.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblunck at infradead.org>
>> ---
>>  lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_dev.c  | 22 -----------------
>>  lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_vdev.c | 44
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>>
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_vdev.c
>> b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_vdev.c
>> index 7d6e54f..523a3d6 100644
>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_vdev.c
>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_vdev.c
>> @@ -37,8 +37,10 @@
>>  #include <stdint.h>
>>  #include <sys/queue.h>
>>
> [...]
>
>> +
>> +static struct rte_bus rte_vdev_bus = {
>> +    .scan = vdev_scan,
>> +    .probe = vdev_probe,
>> +};
>> +
>> +RTE_REGISTER_BUS_LATE(virtual, rte_vdev_bus);
>>
>
> Does it matter if VDEV buses are registered before or after other
> buses? Either way, the callbacks would be called in the order specified
> in EAL.
>
>

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).


More information about the dev mailing list