From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com (mail-ob0-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 532B5941A for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:09:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: by obctp1 with SMTP id tp1so11309782obc.2 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 04:09:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ZACbYbWGpgOsix+d2yxlyOzbQGqeWyePCsBRI1xmEoQ=; b=jjqcCwAlW/AcCX+zUlmz/+w1OMfB2eQr5m1mgpStwsUx/2vaxSeMtBqVJrIcNu5nDY XLEfT7BaCa/iFfqF6SMU1fFAoqlWFFIPBeTChRiplPxFKNmxu6Vvcxmo8G10OipQ/Wsh SbrPAFSiGpXeQZaAWKvUVhQyYjAMGsUDhVkUzWwGvBM2v7yEwmBwvOI66dmOPlPPuY6b oxiGYHQaFKiIL/GTTMkjqbYFg4Ew5Id3CtoP59xbALFq0JdChxYP7r4v3/+UucvLZn9M xCNnB05zWWFsIxCCJHZstvlfL7N5dO1nrPDhSATZvjUJXN5EJujRJ+wg3lwkusj0fJfV Hiyg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnBUeGZSQvkzvWc40N2zhnlT7GKbUZ6eNpgDx4myLGnSDztHw+7JBx+TT1W5nVzjohkazK/ MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.227.195 with SMTP id sc3mr5551991obc.48.1445425764816; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 04:09:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.131.166 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 04:09:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <56276EDD.7060002@redhat.com> References: <56276EDD.7060002@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:09:24 +0200 Message-ID: From: David Marchand To: Panu Matilainen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] eal: move plugin loading to eal/common 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, 21 Oct 2015 11:09:25 -0000 On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote: > > Btw, returning an error here would change current behavior of dpdk loading >> drivers. >> Not sure we want this as people may rely on this loading not failing. >> > > Yeah, dpdk currently doesn't fail if you pass garbage to -d, which is > actually fairly questionable behavior. Why would you load drivers with -d > if you dont care about them getting loaded? Well, maybe to handle an > "everything" case but that's much better handled with the driver directory > thing. > > So actually the current patches make things a bit inconsistent, why should > driver directories cause a failure if individual drivers do not? The > question is, which behavior is the one people want: I personally would > rather make -dgiddy.goo fail rather than just warn and chug away but its > not exactly a deal-breaker for me. > Neither to me. I agree on the principle of failing when passing wrong stuff, it is saner. I just want to make sure nobody complains about this change later. Thomas ? Bruce ? -- David Marchand