From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from wes1-so2.wedos.net (wes1-so2.wedos.net [46.28.106.16]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 039C13005 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 14:30:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz (pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz [147.229.13.147]) by wes1-so2.wedos.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3pzSsN5LwWzqy; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 14:30:32 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 14:31:53 +0100 From: Jan Viktorin To: David Marchand Message-ID: <20160208143153.0a01f7fe@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz> In-Reply-To: <1454078953-23744-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@6wind.com> References: <1453476464-31767-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@6wind.com> <1454078953-23744-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@6wind.com> Organization: RehiveTech MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/9] pci cleanup and blacklist rework 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: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 13:30:33 -0000 Hello David, I am confused a bit. I started to review the "[PATCH 0/9] prepare for rte_device / rte_driver" series and then I've noticed there are 2 patch series having "pci: no need for dynamic tailq init" patch there. But then, there is this v2 that does not have this patch. What is the right one? What should I look at. Is related? Regards Jan On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 15:49:04 +0100 David Marchand wrote: > Before 2.2.0 release, while preparing for more changes in eal (and fixing > a problem reported by Roger M. [1]), I came up with this (part of) patchset > that tries to make the pci code more compact and easier to read. > > I ended up introducing some hooks in the pci layer to customize pci > blacklist / whitelist handling and make it possible to automatically > bind / unbind pci devices to igb_uio (or equivalent) when attaching > a device. > > I am still not really happy: > - the pci blacklist / whitelist makes me think we should let the > application tell eal which resources to use and get rid of the > unconditional pci scan code, which means removing rte_eal_pci_probe() > from rte_eal_init(), and remove rte_eal_dev_init() for vdevs, > - the more I look at this, the more I think automatic bind / unbind for > pci devices should be called from the pmd context. The drivers know best > what they require and what they want to do with the resources passed by > the eal (see the drv_flags / RTE_KDRV_NONE / rte_eal_pci_map_device stuff > for virtio pmd). > This behaviour would still be optional, on a per-device basis. > > So, I think that these hooks are not that good of an idea and I kept > them private for now, but anyway, sending this for comments. > > > Changes since v1: > - split the initial patchset. This current patchset now depends on > [2] sent separately which should be applied first, > - introduced hooks in pci common code, > - implemented automatic bind / unbind for "uio" pci devices > > > [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-November/028140.html > [2] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-January/032387.html > -- Jan Viktorin E-mail: Viktorin@RehiveTech.com System Architect Web: www.RehiveTech.com RehiveTech Brno, Czech Republic