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 5B473D14E for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:03:51 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=intel; t=1490706232; x=1522242232; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=N6SrOEx7JXV7JFtCzPaaIOyC9YLR4c6GyuHwYByy/W0=; b=e/hfLmwA8ZEkRZ8J9f0gd1NRswYt+uCw/f+cmGYY2meIQGt7Fll4IBEi kPImdrMM5rHCXmFXeY1RSI3KgyklyA==; Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Mar 2017 06:03:50 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,236,1486454400"; d="scan'208";a="1128035043" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.140]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2017 06:03:48 -0700 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:03:48 +0100 Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:03:48 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan?= Rivet Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20170328130347.GA22460@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1490701917-17089-1-git-send-email-gaetan.rivet@6wind.com> <1490702489-17950-1-git-send-email-gaetan.rivet@6wind.com> <20170328122000.GA24328@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170328124409.GC7450@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20170328124409.GC7450@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> Organization: Intel Research and =?iso-8859-1?Q?De=ACvel?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?opment?= Ireland Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/1] pci: default to whitelist mode X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:03:52 -0000 On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 02:44:09PM +0200, Gaëtan Rivet wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 01:20:00PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 02:01:29PM +0200, Gaetan Rivet wrote: > > > Expects all devices to be explicitly defined before being probed. > > > > > > The blacklist mode can be prone to errors, coaxing users in > > > capturing devices that could be used for management or otherwise. > > > The whitelist mode offers users more control and highlight > > > mistakes by making them visible on the command line. > > > > > > This is more useful to have a clear idea of the state of the > > > system used, which is better in the context of standalone / > > > headless applications. > > > > > > Using the -b option will revert to the original behavior. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Gaetan Rivet --- v2: > > > justify this default behavior evolution. --- > > > > I don't have major objections to this patch, though it does make it > > mandatory to use port parameters where before it was not. The one > > suggestion I will make is that, if we take this approach, we should > > probably add a --wl-all (whitelist-all) flag to go back to having > > all ports automatically bound, if so desired. > > > > Are there use cases where the blacklist mode would be used without > blacklisting any device? The current -b option is almost enough for > the same level of functionality. > Yes. For ports used for management, those will probably remain bound to the regular kernel driver, and not available for DPDK use. That means that the DPDK app need not specify any blacklist or whitelist options right now, you can determine what ports to use or not simply by binding to a uio/vfio driver or not at system setup time. Is this not the normal way people do port setup for DPDK? > If there is an actual need to a full PCI probe, adding this option is > certainly possible. I was thinking otherwise of allowing "all" as an > argument to -w, which would have our users using -wall or -w=all, which > seems clear enough. This would essentially be the inverse of the --no-pci > parameter. > > Which could probably be removed if this patch is accepted. > > -- > Gaëtan Rivet > 6WIND