From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010A21B05 for ; Fri, 25 May 2018 15:57:11 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 May 2018 06:57:10 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.49,440,1520924400"; d="scan'208";a="44709417" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.55]) by orsmga006.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 25 May 2018 06:57:08 -0700 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 25 May 2018 14:57:07 +0100 Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 14:57:06 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: Kevin Wilson Cc: Thomas Monjalon , dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20180525135706.GA23368@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <2384240.a6VFuv6gqB@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Research and Development Ireland Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Kernel Module dependency in DPDK 18.05-rc5 and earlier DPDK releases 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: Fri, 25 May 2018 13:57:12 -0000 On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 04:20:42PM +0300, Kevin Wilson wrote: > Thanks, Thomas. > > Actually there is an EAL rte_eal_check_module() method which does this exactly: > http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c#n1089 > It is declared in eal_private.h. > > Is it reasonable to send a patch which moves the decalartion to eal.h > instead so PMDs can use it in their probe() method ? > > Apart from it - So is there any practical effect for using the > RTE_PMD_REGISTER_KMOD_DEP() ? or is it only a sort of declarative > macro, saying that the PMD is dependent on the specified kernel > modules ? In the past - did it really ever check for dependency and > shouted back > when the required modules specified in the RTE_PMD_REGISTER_KMOD_DEP() > macro were not found ? > AFAIK this information is only used for reporting out when running pmdinfo on a driver or statically linked binary. It was never enforced at runtime, simply because the lack of particular ports was never an error. If a module was not loaded, and NICs not bound to that module, it was always assumed that the ports were never meant to be used by DPDK anyway. /Bruce