From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <thomas@monjalon.net> Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E033714E8 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 25 May 2018 16:54:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F65822644; Fri, 25 May 2018 10:54:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 25 May 2018 10:54:58 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=HvEQfV8rVXBkF9KKkoOGxahifH luPWWxdcLntc7AkKs=; b=KOZCz3jLqAS3W7aJHwx0ebqyDKcUwl6tWXewYvBHGt BLMWLves4qUhL8RrcpgXGQobJoNXRTTfDHT3Z8L7EDnwQbNpt4U91BIpECZhMbGm 7IpD2W4GPFXWAXiUyq0gZMwoeorz6XP1fhIrqYLXJlrxntMvVQtVhDJzWSubNOAa 4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=HvEQfV 8rVXBkF9KKkoOGxahifHluPWWxdcLntc7AkKs=; b=fwVnhH1uFaN0RIAvf3/emk stjvifYl0wTdKyAWg7cF5mqfnX5OZTx3GlV//Zs96dR2MQ2lBi5e05biiYoREcSx RcmcH4VoOW0WMklKggmSHsmmDj0CVnGb8to/zrTRc0o7iFkX1OfvoeQTptUkxI7h vKKMwRmVb4pHvD/qBhE/EtdQWWRO6v6lF15Dp+DT2VD/QdA8TW3iP5ppPYgNuXcF pW3238dVUTMTDCJusiRADTRTjNuFCYoJRBOBplB+r8Hd6MxEmZsUzN/LHpJEF4O0 L/Tvv/ZTIHohlKHKRBvVv7eWdInRIVt9bwD5TNjn8ZKNQprrGt/BG60un1E8XR9A == X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:wiMIW1hUpmQq6njpCSOSN6kMOpuez3_kxZSAjGaYMXPGeowAaayi7Q> X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:wiMIWwGJc6CXm8wtMVlJ5lZtfR1lamoNfi1WiIowO9tsgJh6Fi7Reg> X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:wiMIW4WcvckOg48d2VXdOo8xoWaC5pU9YWDjw0HJ2suVVy8hW-omTg> X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:wiMIWya6nRCJRLM5Vqb_ierf6qYWg7Y9NVCpP9mBSvzXbndpJAdvLA> X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:wiMIW-d74HxTXmThwj93lWqg0XhK1xNITiGJG6hasBlKwFwafetm7A> X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:wiMIW6qLp85ItPmQ6KQM3KHJEAZ8E_rHgKTO7M9WH48nLQVz-7F3mg> X-ME-Sender: <xms:wiMIW-KBj5vmFwz0BXt4RxTuZDDDZvyHnHG6GG2HxkSXYcWiXGFPaQ> Received: from xps.localnet (230.202.154.77.rev.sfr.net [77.154.202.230]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E24D1E4434; Fri, 25 May 2018 10:54:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> Cc: Kevin Wilson <wkevils@gmail.com>, dev@dpdk.org Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 16:54:53 +0200 Message-ID: <5440440.uHIVqB2yed@xps> In-Reply-To: <20180525135706.GA23368@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <CAGXs5wXJ4EYjkKvZdh6O8stw1zvYc4srTwjJsUhheC5vAZbqDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAGXs5wU6xk6y-EJ6eNrBwZ9Z93W4kw1LoJ9o47UjmZyNhLN01A@mail.gmail.com> <20180525135706.GA23368@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Kernel Module dependency in DPDK 18.05-rc5 and earlier DPDK releases X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 14:54:59 -0000 25/05/2018 15:57, Bruce Richardson: > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 04:20:42PM +0300, Kevin Wilson wrote: > > Thanks, Thomas. > > > > Actually there is an EAL rte_eal_check_module() method which does this exactly: > > http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c#n1089 > > It is declared in eal_private.h. > > > > Is it reasonable to send a patch which moves the decalartion to eal.h > > instead so PMDs can use it in their probe() method ? > > > > Apart from it - So is there any practical effect for using the > > RTE_PMD_REGISTER_KMOD_DEP() ? or is it only a sort of declarative > > macro, saying that the PMD is dependent on the specified kernel > > modules ? In the past - did it really ever check for dependency and > > shouted back > > when the required modules specified in the RTE_PMD_REGISTER_KMOD_DEP() > > macro were not found ? > > > AFAIK this information is only used for reporting out when running pmdinfo > on a driver or statically linked binary. It was never enforced at runtime, > simply because the lack of particular ports was never an error. If a module > was not loaded, and NICs not bound to that module, it was always assumed > that the ports were never meant to be used by DPDK anyway. Yes it is informational. But we can add a log to help with debug. It could even be an error if a port is whitelisted.