Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/4] virtio: return 1 to tell the upper layer we don't take over this device

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

2016-03-01 08:39, Xie, Huawei:
> On 3/1/2016 4:24 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2016-03-01 07:53, Xie, Huawei:
> >> On 3/1/2016 3:18 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>> 2016-02-26 09:53, Huawei Xie:
> >>>> @@ -1037,8 +1039,11 @@ eth_virtio_dev_init(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev)
> >>>>  
> >>>>  	pci_dev = eth_dev->pci_dev;
> >>>>  
> >>>> -	if (vtpci_init(pci_dev, hw) < 0)
> >>>> -		return -1;
> >>>> +	ret = vtpci_init(pci_dev, hw);
> >>>> +	if (ret) {
> >>>> +		rte_free(eth_dev->data->mac_addrs);
> >>> The freeing seems not related to this patch.
> >> I can send a separate patch, ok within this patchset?
> > Yes
> >
> >>> [...]
> >>>>  	PMD_INIT_LOG(INFO, "trying with legacy virtio pci.");
> >>>> -	if (legacy_virtio_resource_init(dev, hw) < 0)
> >>>> +	if (legacy_virtio_resource_init(dev, hw) < 0) {
> >>>> +		if (dev->kdrv == RTE_KDRV_UNKNOWN) {
> >>>> +			PMD_INIT_LOG(INFO,
> >>>> +				"skip kernel managed virtio device.");
> >>>> +			return 1;
> >>>> +		}
> >>>>  		return -1;
> >>>> +	}
> >>> You cannot skip a device if it was whitelisted.
> >>> I think you should check RTE_DEVTYPE_WHITELISTED_PCI and throw an error
> >>> in this case.
> >> I feel there is a subtle difference on the understanding of -w args. To
> >> me, without it, probe all devices; with it, only probe whiltelisted API.
> >> That is all.
> > I don't know if it is clearly documented indeed.
> >
> >> Do you mean that -w implies that devices whitelisted must be probed
> >> successfully otherwise we throw an error? If i get it right, then what
> >> about the devices whitelisted but without PMD driver?
> > Yes we should probably consider the whitelist as a "forced" init.
> > Later, we could introduce some device flags for probing/discovery:
> > PROBE_AUTO, PROBE_FORCE, PROBE_IGNORE. It would make white/black list
> > more precise.
> >
> >> I will fix, :).
> >> if (dev->kdrv == RTE_KDRV_UNKNOWN && dev->devargs->type !=
> >> RTE_DEVTYPE_WHITELISTED_PCI) {
> >>         ....
> >>         return 1;
> >> }
> > You should also consider the blacklist case: if there is a blacklist,
> > the not blacklisted devices must be initialised or throw an error.
> >
> Don't we already skip probing the blacklisted device in
> rte_eal_pci_probe_one_driver?

Yes, I'm talking about the devices which are not blacklisted.
Having some blacklisted devices imply that others are implicitly whitelisted.