From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71A8A00C5; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 09:58:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35D3842B98; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 09:58:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A96642B73 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 09:58:40 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1666857520; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=bKJDkSDEB3GDamue7KuCbd/QtKASd/yac1UhxiKHnbk=; b=FWPSJgjaku5k3YbR52vp/cruVo/nWAnN2+2t37fuJjz/d4Vi7jbeuvGnO05C6uuafwRGAg S9N9cDZwpBVZxbGT3kIqLChQikPv7QPfRR+9oMQ9/WHBsGhjV9fVrr0QVe/o6AH+HpnT2b RIM77tTwQ+/ELpzffAbEi7QFVFna4PY= Received: from mail-pg1-f200.google.com (mail-pg1-f200.google.com [209.85.215.200]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-32-fqSEgh2JNhG7NxkK_Kl5IA-1; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 03:58:39 -0400 X-MC-Unique: fqSEgh2JNhG7NxkK_Kl5IA-1 Received: by mail-pg1-f200.google.com with SMTP id p18-20020a63e652000000b0046b27534651so353275pgj.17 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 00:58:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=bKJDkSDEB3GDamue7KuCbd/QtKASd/yac1UhxiKHnbk=; b=27Bw5c4+v19tIljAmXmjGMhPnTIpLLB21/gRanfgggSpskSOH+SPS4mU64h+nQIh/x JAiU9onQ9ooknCBXUoOlebe1T0oHrPEVeVy7PkZFTEbNwpjEo4EmtnMgOFIQ41kcgsW5 u6pfWeDGLRm2QFcOi7qFBVQS7F3CwAVZ20LRYhwXQccCBDtWIVJwsKKCsBZ1ZJkEOVrx N9tDkiybpLO+DGnYilvUjZCy0NbwLx/wS4JhSd9/0S9vF0XSPzKOa9+Qd2b0OLtO7r3v +YBC9vyoqx58XJvCq6f+YVMgpMhtYFvK5efooetxVSc5EBuNGOM2+BlLemqEm2xFyEnp /eLQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf3tvLsPr53evgp7L4fW5DSu6YIMPHoVoWD7I06hfpNU7TTpD03N l1EU5O9Xl318kMXvgR65zz8Xu/+PAzMakB+F9qr3APo33fKIHlG0qoaJPUQvfCiigdCG1D5T9Jh E94nJayTzlaPzsa3R/mE= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8b46:0:b0:56c:349f:191e with SMTP id i6-20020aa78b46000000b0056c349f191emr10514629pfd.29.1666857518065; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 00:58:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7XyIICb7IRk7bsZzNS2ZCSROAkCucmGVZxy8uBLX67+2NsCsNiGjrBVsaFW98UTIQFRyjnYKbIjA7x2R/mypA= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8b46:0:b0:56c:349f:191e with SMTP id i6-20020aa78b46000000b0056c349f191emr10514608pfd.29.1666857517724; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 00:58:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220921133451.4164506-1-ferruh.yigit@amd.com> <20221019131118.32394-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <5565666.Sgy9Pd6rRy@thomas> In-Reply-To: From: David Marchand Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2022 09:58:25 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] bus/vdev: automatically add eth alias for net drivers To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: Bruce Richardson , Thomas Monjalon , dev@dpdk.org, techboard@dpdk.org X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 1:52 PM Ferruh Yigit wrote: > >> Honestly I think the status quo is OK: > >> We have some aliases in some PMD for some historical reason > >> and everybody looks OK with that. Isn't it? > >> > > > > Well, the inconsistency bugs me a little, but if others feel the status quo > > is ok, I'm ok with that. > > In my perspective this is for cleanup, and new PMDs keep adding alias > because they are copying from existing drivers. > Except from above there is no harm to have alias. Do we have a "valid" case of adding new aliases? I don't think it is the case, so we can warn of new aliases introduction in checkpatches.sh. At worse, if a valid case is identified later, checkpatches.sh is only a warning in patchwork and maintainers will manually review this warning. -- David Marchand