From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DA049AA4 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 09:39:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Mar 2016 00:39:36 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,522,1449561600"; d="scan'208";a="924114178" Received: from fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.205]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Mar 2016 00:39:29 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx116.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.20) by fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.205) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 00:39:28 -0800 Received: from shsmsx151.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.6.50) by fmsmsx116.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 00:39:28 -0800 Received: from shsmsx101.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.136]) by SHSMSX151.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.18]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 16:39:26 +0800 From: "Xie, Huawei" To: Thomas Monjalon Thread-Topic: [PATCH v4 4/4] virtio: return 1 to tell the upper layer we don't take over this device Thread-Index: AdFzj4MuUDrymegJT1SI/9bUpaqDKw== Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 08:39:25 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20151222035041.GA7532@pxdev.xzpeter.org> <1870056.1ZGr9B153f@xps13> <8208032.DLqNqWtROc@xps13> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Troitsky, Nikita" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 4/4] virtio: return 1 to tell the upper layer we don't take over this device X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 08:39:37 -0000 On 3/1/2016 4:24 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:=0A= > 2016-03-01 07:53, Xie, Huawei:=0A= >> On 3/1/2016 3:18 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:=0A= >>> 2016-02-26 09:53, Huawei Xie:=0A= >>>> @@ -1037,8 +1039,11 @@ eth_virtio_dev_init(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev= )=0A= >>>> =0A= >>>> pci_dev =3D eth_dev->pci_dev;=0A= >>>> =0A= >>>> - if (vtpci_init(pci_dev, hw) < 0)=0A= >>>> - return -1;=0A= >>>> + ret =3D vtpci_init(pci_dev, hw);=0A= >>>> + if (ret) {=0A= >>>> + rte_free(eth_dev->data->mac_addrs);=0A= >>> The freeing seems not related to this patch.=0A= >> I can send a separate patch, ok within this patchset?=0A= > Yes=0A= >=0A= >>> [...]=0A= >>>> PMD_INIT_LOG(INFO, "trying with legacy virtio pci.");=0A= >>>> - if (legacy_virtio_resource_init(dev, hw) < 0)=0A= >>>> + if (legacy_virtio_resource_init(dev, hw) < 0) {=0A= >>>> + if (dev->kdrv =3D=3D RTE_KDRV_UNKNOWN) {=0A= >>>> + PMD_INIT_LOG(INFO,=0A= >>>> + "skip kernel managed virtio device.");=0A= >>>> + return 1;=0A= >>>> + }=0A= >>>> return -1;=0A= >>>> + }=0A= >>> You cannot skip a device if it was whitelisted.=0A= >>> I think you should check RTE_DEVTYPE_WHITELISTED_PCI and throw an error= =0A= >>> in this case.=0A= >> I feel there is a subtle difference on the understanding of -w args. To= =0A= >> me, without it, probe all devices; with it, only probe whiltelisted API.= =0A= >> That is all.=0A= > I don't know if it is clearly documented indeed.=0A= >=0A= >> Do you mean that -w implies that devices whitelisted must be probed=0A= >> successfully otherwise we throw an error? If i get it right, then what= =0A= >> about the devices whitelisted but without PMD driver?=0A= > Yes we should probably consider the whitelist as a "forced" init.=0A= > Later, we could introduce some device flags for probing/discovery:=0A= > PROBE_AUTO, PROBE_FORCE, PROBE_IGNORE. It would make white/black list=0A= > more precise.=0A= >=0A= >> I will fix, :).=0A= >> if (dev->kdrv =3D=3D RTE_KDRV_UNKNOWN && dev->devargs->type !=3D=0A= >> RTE_DEVTYPE_WHITELISTED_PCI) {=0A= >> ....=0A= >> return 1;=0A= >> }=0A= > You should also consider the blacklist case: if there is a blacklist,=0A= > the not blacklisted devices must be initialised or throw an error.=0A= >=0A= Don't we already skip probing the blacklisted device in=0A= rte_eal_pci_probe_one_driver?=0A= =0A=