From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 242A28D38 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 14:46:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Sep 2015 05:46:13 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,469,1437462000"; d="scan'208";a="762280304" Received: from irsmsx106.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.31]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Sep 2015 05:46:13 -0700 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.12]) by IRSMSX106.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.8.112]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 13:46:11 +0100 From: "Iremonger, Bernard" To: "Richardson, Bruce" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/18] refactor eal driver registration code Thread-Index: AQHQ5wOCWRkozWuIRECB12KOpN94Wp4sTSJA Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 12:46:11 +0000 Message-ID: <8CEF83825BEC744B83065625E567D7C219F4A8E6@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1441364514-24905-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com> <20150904111850.GA10756@bricha3-MOBL3> In-Reply-To: <20150904111850.GA10756@bricha3-MOBL3> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 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 12:46:14 -0000 Hi Bruce, > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 00/18] refactor eal driver registratio= n > code >=20 > 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, >=20 > I don't think I like this approach very much. It seems very brittle to re= move > the explicit type field and starting to rely on the drivers putting a pre= fix in the > name instead i.e. implicit typing. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Regards, > /Bruce The eth_ prefix is already required for vdev's for example: testpmd -c f -n 4 --vdev=3D'eth_pcap0,iface=3Deth0' testpmd -c f -n 4 --vdev=3Deth_ring0 The eth_ prefix should not be used for pdev's. Keeping the type field and name field is duplicating information Regards, Bernard.