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

Shreyansh Jain shreyansh.jain at nxp.com
Wed Feb 15 15:27:47 CET 2017


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wiles, Keith [mailto:keith.wiles at intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 7:53 PM
> To: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain at nxp.com>
> Cc: Jan Blunck <jblunck at infradead.org>; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/7] eal: move virtual device probing into a
> bus
> 
> 
> > On Feb 15, 2017, at 8:15 AM, Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain at nxp.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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).
> 
> 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.

Ah, now I remember - there was a patch from Jerin for this.
Probably he is the best person to comment here.
(I don't have much insight here). 

> 
> Regards,
> Keith



More information about the dev mailing list