From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69BD19426 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:15:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Oct 2015 04:15:23 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,711,1437462000"; d="scan'208";a="831643493" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.208.65]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 21 Oct 2015 04:15:22 -0700 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:15:20 +0025 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:15:20 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: David Marchand Message-ID: <20151021111520.GA21768@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <56276EDD.7060002@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] eal: move plugin loading to eal/common X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:15:24 -0000 On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 01:09:24PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Panu Matilainen > wrote: > > > > Btw, returning an error here would change current behavior of dpdk loading > >> drivers. > >> Not sure we want this as people may rely on this loading not failing. > >> > > > > Yeah, dpdk currently doesn't fail if you pass garbage to -d, which is > > actually fairly questionable behavior. Why would you load drivers with -d > > if you dont care about them getting loaded? Well, maybe to handle an > > "everything" case but that's much better handled with the driver directory > > thing. > > > > So actually the current patches make things a bit inconsistent, why should > > driver directories cause a failure if individual drivers do not? The > > question is, which behavior is the one people want: I personally would > > rather make -dgiddy.goo fail rather than just warn and chug away but its > > not exactly a deal-breaker for me. > > > > Neither to me. > I agree on the principle of failing when passing wrong stuff, it is saner. > I just want to make sure nobody complains about this change later. > > Thomas ? Bruce ? > Error early rather than later. If the -d flag doesn't work crash then, rather than leaving people having to scroll-back to find why their NIC isn't working. /Bruce