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 A9D988D38 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 14:53:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Sep 2015 05:53:17 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,469,1437462000"; d="scan'208";a="638488609" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.208.62]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 04 Sep 2015 05:53:15 -0700 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 04 Sep 2015 13:53:15 +0025 Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 13:53:15 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: "Iremonger, Bernard" Message-ID: <20150904125314.GA6500@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <1441364514-24905-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com> <20150904111850.GA10756@bricha3-MOBL3> <8CEF83825BEC744B83065625E567D7C219F4A8E6@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8CEF83825BEC744B83065625E567D7C219F4A8E6@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/18] refactor eal driver registration code 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: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 12:53:19 -0000 On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 01:46:11PM +0100, Iremonger, Bernard wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/18] refactor eal driver registration > > code > > > > On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 12:01:36PM +0100, Bernard Iremonger wrote: > > > At present the eal driver registration code is more complicated than > > > it needs to be. > > > > > > This RFC proposes to simplify the eal driver registration code. > > > > > > Remove the type field from the eal driver structure. > > > Refactor the eal driver registration code to use the name field in the > > > eal driver structure instead of the type field. > > > > > > Modify all PMD's to use the modified eal driver structure. > > > Initialise the name field in the eal driver structure in some PMD's > > > where it is not initialised at present. > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I don't think I like this approach very much. It seems very brittle to remove > > the explicit type field and starting to rely on the drivers putting a prefix in the > > name instead i.e. implicit typing. > > > > What is the major concern with marking drivers as virtual or physical? My > > thinking is that we should keep the type field, just perhaps change PDEV to > > be more descriptive in identifying the type of physical device, e.g. DEV_PCI. > > > > Regards, > > /Bruce > > The eth_ prefix is already required for vdev's for example: > testpmd -c f -n 4 --vdev='eth_pcap0,iface=eth0' > testpmd -c f -n 4 --vdev=eth_ring0 > > The eth_ prefix should not be used for pdev's. > > Keeping the type field and name field is duplicating information > > Regards, > > Bernard. Hi Bernard, It's duplicating information until such a time as we decide to relax the restriction on having vdev's starting with "eth" or we want to have a driver for a physical nic starting with "eth". :-) Overall, I'm not seeing the need for this particular patchset right now. I think your previous patchset - removing the need for a pci_dev structure on vdevs - as being the more important change for cleaning up our code. Regards, /Bruce