From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D72E12952 for ; Wed, 10 May 2017 13:01:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 May 2017 04:01:55 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,318,1491289200"; d="scan'208";a="98113690" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.81]) ([10.237.220.81]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 May 2017 04:01:53 -0700 From: Ferruh Yigit To: Gaetan Rivet , Jan Blunck Cc: dev@dpdk.org References: Message-ID: <21031bf2-9472-c0c9-a344-4ce955e795c1@intel.com> Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 12:01:53 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 02/42] eal: parse "driver" device argument before probing drivers 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: Wed, 10 May 2017 11:01:56 -0000 On 5/10/2017 3:34 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 4/11/2017 4:44 PM, Gaetan Rivet wrote: >> From: Jan Blunck >> >> In some cases the virtual device name should be totally different than >> the driver being used for the device. Therefore lets parse the devargs for >> the "driver" argument before probing drivers in vdev_probe_all_drivers(). > > Hi Gaetan, Jan, > > I have caught this while checking something else. > > This patch adds an alternative way for virtual devices to get probed > when device name is not proper. > > This probing can be done by having "driver=" in device > argument (not in name). > > Do we really need this alternative method, as far as I can see only user > of this is a unit test for bonding? > > This method is a little hidden/undocumented and a hack solution, I think > it is better and easier to fix virtual device names in unit test and > remove this, what do you think? I am suggesting: http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/24196/ > > Thanks, > ferruh > >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck > <...> >