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 EC9B15F14 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 10:36:41 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Mar 2018 01:36:40 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,426,1515484800"; d="scan'208";a="179945308" Received: from mmorgan-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.252.7.229]) ([10.252.7.229]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2018 01:36:38 -0800 To: Jianfeng Tan , dev@dpdk.org Cc: bruce.richardson@intel.com, konstantin.ananyev@intel.com, thomas@monjalon.net, maxime.coquelin@redhat.com, ferruh.yigit@intel.com References: <1520177405-59091-1-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com> <1520177405-59091-3-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: <934e5f81-8356-d430-54ed-51037c92e798@intel.com> Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 09:36:37 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1520177405-59091-3-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] bus/vdev: bus scan by multi-process channel 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: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 09:36:42 -0000 On 04-Mar-18 3:30 PM, Jianfeng Tan wrote: > To scan the vdevs in primary, we send request to primary process > to obtain the names for vdevs. > > Only the name is shared from the primary. In probe(), the device > driver is supposed to locate (or request more) the detail > information from the primary. > > Signed-off-by: Jianfeng Tan > --- Is there much point in having private vdevs? Granted, i'm not exactly a heavy user of vdev's, but to me this would seem like a way to introduce more confusion. How do i tell which devices are shared between processes, and which are private to one process? Can i control which one do i get? To me it would seem like it would be better to just switch all vdevs to being shared. -- Thanks, Anatoly