From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68BDE20F for ; Wed, 10 May 2017 04:34:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 May 2017 19:34:21 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,317,1491289200"; d="scan'208";a="85543479" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.252.26.212]) ([10.252.26.212]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 May 2017 19:34:20 -0700 To: Gaetan Rivet , Jan Blunck References: Cc: dev@dpdk.org From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 03:34:19 +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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 02/42] eal: parse "driver" device argument before probing drivers 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 02:34:22 -0000 On 4/11/2017 4:44 PM, Gaetan Rivet wrote: > From: Jan Blunck > > In some cases the virtual device name should be totally different than > the driver being used for the device. Therefore lets parse the devargs for > the "driver" argument before probing drivers in vdev_probe_all_drivers(). Hi Gaetan, Jan, I have caught this while checking something else. This patch adds an alternative way for virtual devices to get probed when device name is not proper. This probing can be done by having "driver=" in device argument (not in name). Do we really need this alternative method, as far as I can see only user of this is a unit test for bonding? This method is a little hidden/undocumented and a hack solution, I think it is better and easier to fix virtual device names in unit test and remove this, what do you think? Thanks, ferruh > > Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <...>