From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25F0E7F18
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  7 Nov 2014 14:17:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hmsreliant.think-freely.org
 ([2001:470:8:a08:7aac:c0ff:fec2:933b] helo=localhost)
 by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.63)
 (envelope-from <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>)
 id 1XmjYR-0004G8-NJ; Fri, 07 Nov 2014 08:26:24 -0500
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 08:26:18 -0500
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
To: Nicolas Pernas Maradei <nico@emutex.com>
Message-ID: <20141107132618.GD25469@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
References: <545CBCE0.2030806@emutex.com> <2085190.a5sr9ou3P7@xps13>
 <545CC581.40309@emutex.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <545CC581.40309@emutex.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--)
X-Spam-Status: No
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] White listing a virtual device
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://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: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 13:17:11 -0000

On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 01:13:37PM +0000, Nicolas Pernas Maradei wrote:
> On 07/11/14 12:55, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >It's by design. If you add a vdev, you want to use it and there is no
> >reason to whitelist it, and especially no reason to blacklist a device
> >you created for your usage.
> >
> >Do you agree?
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> Generally speaking you probably won't want to white list a virtual device -
> just using it. However it does seem an inconsistency in the design that you
> could add virtual devices but you can't white list them. If they are added
> to the main device list they should be treated just as another device.
> 
> In our particular use case we want to white list a pcap device to ensure
> that it is the only available port for testing.
> 
> Thanks,
> Nico.
> 

Then you create the pcap device with --vdev, and simply don't load the pmds for
any of your physical devices (or just don't use pci-whitelist at all if you're
doing a static build).  If you do that, then the corresponding niantic driver
won't initialize any of the hardware, you'll only get the pcap port.

Neil