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 2224E29D2 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:07:52 +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 3qQGbq5tSlzBjG; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:07:51 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:07:56 +0100 From: Jan Viktorin To: David Marchand Cc: dev@dpdk.org, thomas.monjalon@6wind.com Message-ID: <20160316170756.694d7484@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 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: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:07:52 -0000 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. Hello David, what is the state of this series at the moment? Do you expect some more reviews? I remember that I've sent some reviews but I don't think they are integrated in the v2. By the way, there two patch series joined into one or something like that, am I right? Regards Jan > > 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