From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: White listing a virtual device Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 14:59:01 +0100 Message-ID: <2501357.jaIIFMyNbY@xps13> References: <545CBCE0.2030806@emutex.com> <20141107132618.GD25469@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <545CCBA8.7030900@emutex.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: Nicolas Pernas Maradei Return-path: In-Reply-To: <545CCBA8.7030900-M3NBUjLqch7QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" 2014-11-07 13:39, Nicolas Pernas Maradei: > On 07/11/14 13:26, Neil Horman wrote: > > Then you create the pcap device with --vdev, and simply don't load the pmds for > > any of your physical devices (or just don't use pci-whitelist at all if you're > > doing a static build). If you do that, then the corresponding niantic driver > > won't initialize any of the hardware, you'll only get the pcap port. > > What you are saying is just another way to black list the ports I don't > want to use. I'm aware of that option (as well as using the -b option) > but in our particular case we have several systems under test with > different configurations and we want to use this virtual port only. > Which seems to be a perfect use case for white listing rather than black > listing or modifying the system configuration. Sorry I don't understand why you don't want to use the blacklist option. -- Thomas