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.