From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.3] tools/dpdk_nic_bind.py: Verbosely warn the user on bind Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 00:38:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1640541.74OgNbrBZB@xps13> References: <1449850823-29017-1-git-send-email-aconole@redhat.com> <2190233.dCyjSQMtc6@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Aaron Conole Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com (mail-wm0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ACBD9AA4 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2016 09:38:35 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f44.google.com with SMTP id l68so22662718wml.1 for ; Tue, 01 Mar 2016 00:38:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2016-01-26 21:21, David Marchand: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Thomas Monjalon > wrote: > > 2015-12-11 11:20, Aaron Conole: > >> DPDK ports are only detected during the EAL initialization. After that, any > >> new DPDK ports which are bound will not be visible to the application. > >> > >> The dpdk_nic_bind.py can be a bit more helpful to let users know that DPDK > >> enabled applications will not find rebound ports until after they have been > >> restarted. > > > > I think it's better to improve hotplug and allow hot binding. > > A work is in progress towards this direction. > > David, can you confirm? > > I intend to provide some rfc patches later this week, for next release. These "auto-hotplug" patches won't be ready for 16.04. But it's possible to use a new bound device with rte_eth_dev_attach(). So this patch is rejected.