From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D404C282 for ; Wed, 10 May 2017 12:11:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 May 2017 03:11:13 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,318,1491289200"; d="scan'208";a="966749654" Received: from rnicolau-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.221.72]) ([10.237.221.72]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 May 2017 03:11:12 -0700 To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: dev@dpdk.org References: <1494341879-18718-1-git-send-email-radu.nicolau@intel.com> <1494341879-18718-3-git-send-email-radu.nicolau@intel.com> <1571308.M4Vgp8n44D@xps> From: Radu Nicolau Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 11:11:12 +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: <1571308.M4Vgp8n44D@xps> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC][PATCH 2/5] pci: allow shared device instances. 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 10:11:15 -0000 Hi On 5/10/2017 10:09 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > Hi, > > 09/05/2017 16:57, Radu Nicolau: >> Updated PCI initialization code to allow devices to be shared across multiple PMDs. >> >> Signed-off-by: Radu Nicolau > I was waiting the day when we have a device shared > by two different interfaces. > Note that some Mellanox and Chelsio devices already instantiate > two ethdev ports per PCI device. > > Please explain your idea behind this "shared" flag. > What is your exact need? Currently for each pci device a look-up into a list of PMDs is performed, and when a match is found the system moves to the next device. Having this flag will allow a PMD to inform the system that there may be more matches, more PMDs that can be used for this particular device. There is a difference when comparing to the devices you mentioned above, in this case the PMDs are totally different types, one network and one cryptodev PMD for each IXGBE network card. > Do you think it is the best solution? We evaluated different approaches and this is what we settled on. It might not be the best, if there are any suggestions of other ways to achieve this I would be thankful.