[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 06/19] ethdev: support attach private device as first

[Burakov, Anatoly]

On 28-Jun-18 12:45 PM, Zhang, Qi Z wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Zhang, Qi Z
>> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 7:27 PM
>> To: Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.burakov at intel.com>; thomas at monjalon.net
>> Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org;
>> Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh
>> <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>; Shelton, Benjamin H
>> <benjamin.h.shelton at intel.com>; Vangati, Narender
>> <narender.vangati at intel.com>
>> Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 06/19] ethdev: support attach private device as first
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Burakov, Anatoly
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 5:41 PM
>>> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>; thomas at monjalon.net
>>> Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org;
>>> Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh
>>> <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>; Shelton, Benjamin H
>>> <benjamin.h.shelton at intel.com>; Vangati, Narender
>>> <narender.vangati at intel.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/19] ethdev: support attach private device as
>>> first
>>>
>>> On 28-Jun-18 10:29 AM, Zhang, Qi Z wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Burakov, Anatoly
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 5:25 PM
>>>>> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>; thomas at monjalon.net
>>>>> Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>;
>>>>> dev at dpdk.org; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com>;
>>>>> Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>; Shelton, Benjamin H
>>>>> <benjamin.h.shelton at intel.com>; Vangati, Narender
>>>>> <narender.vangati at intel.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/19] ethdev: support attach private device
>>>>> as first
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28-Jun-18 2:52 AM, Qi Zhang wrote:
>>>>>> When attach a private device from secondary as the first one, we
>>>>>> need to make sure rte_eth_dev_shared_data is initialized, the
>>>>>> patch add necessary IPC for secondary to inform primary to do
>> initialization.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this mean hotplug is broken before this patch? Can it be moved
>>> earlier?
>>>>
>>>> Basically patch 4,5,6 depends on patch 3, they have no dependency
>>>> each
>>> other.
>>>
>>> So... is that a yes? :)
>>
>> Yes, 3 ,6,4, 5 is better, will re-order
> 
> Apologies, actually patch 6 depends on patch 5, which build the secondary to primary request channel, so current sequence is necessary.

OK, we can leave it as is then.

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly