Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 8/8] eal: VMBUS infrastructure

[Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 18:27:31 +0100
Jan Blunck <jblunck@infradead.org> wrote:

> > +#ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_HV_PMD
> > +/**
> > + * @internal
> > + * Wrapper for use by vmbus drivers as a .probe function to attach to a ethdev
> > + * interface.
> > + */
> > +int rte_eth_dev_vmbus_probe(struct rte_vmbus_driver *vmbus_drv,
> > +                         struct rte_vmbus_device *vmbus_dev);
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * @internal
> > + * Wrapper for use by vmbus drivers as a .remove function to detach a ethdev
> > + * interface.
> > + */
> > +int rte_eth_dev_vmbus_remove(struct rte_vmbus_device *vmbus_dev);
> > +#endif  
> 
> I don't think that replicating the PCI probe/remove wrappers is the
> right thing to do. To me it looks like this should move into the
> rte_vmbus_driver's probe function instead. That way the ethdev header
> can decoupled from the low-level device implementations.

With a real bus model. There would be registration of busses. And the probe would
be:
   foreach bus
       foreach device on bus
...