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

[Bruce Richardson]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 03:43:57PM +0000, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> On 16-Nov-18 2:55 PM, Thomas Monjalon 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.
> > 
> 
> I didn't like it back when it was a thing, and i don't particularly like
> this idea now, to be honest. Port binding should not be under purview of the
> application, but is firmly in the domain of system administrator IMO. I
> don't think it's our place to change system configuration while we're
> running.
> 
I tend to agree. I think driverctl is the way to go here.