From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bilemail2.empirix.com (bilemail2.empirix.com [208.67.76.246]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D9BC688E for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 14:50:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from BILEMAIL1.empirix.com (10.17.8.30) by bilemail2.empirix.com (10.17.8.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.775.38; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:49:42 -0400 Received: from BILEMAIL1.empirix.com ([fe80::f9e0:9293:2523:f021]) by bilemail1.empirix.com ([fe80::f9e0:9293:2523:f021%22]) with mapi id 15.00.0775.031; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:49:41 -0400 From: "Montorsi, Francesco" To: "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: rte_eal_init() alternative? Thread-Index: AdDlfPBIBcvmYGE5S+iOMZ1NcwR9ug== Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 12:49:40 +0000 Message-ID: <44e664970fef4bff942eaee5c7eaca67@bilemail1.empirix.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.12.50.119] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [dpdk-dev] rte_eal_init() alternative? 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, 02 Sep 2015 12:50:02 -0000 Hi all, Currently it seems that the only way to initialize EAL is using rte_eal_ini= t() function, correct? I have the problem that rte_eal_init() will call rte_panic() whenever somet= hing fails to initialize or in other cases it will call exit(). In my application, I would rather like to attempt DPDK initialization. If i= t fails I don't want to exit. Unfortunately I cannot even copy&paste the rte_eal_init() code into my appl= ication (removing rte_panic and exit calls) since it uses a lot of DPDK int= ernal private functions. I think that my requirements (avoid abort/exit calls when init fails) is a = basic requirement... would you accept a patch that adds an alternative rte_= eal_init() function that just returns an error code upon failure, instead o= f immediately exiting? Thanks for your hard work! Francesco Montorsi