From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 03/19] ethdev: enable hotplug on
	multi-process
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2018 23:57:23 +0200
Message-ID: <13002513.5KdvWrtVWc@xps>
References: <20180607123849.14439-1-qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
 <1673164.0Yk3bj6gtc@xps>
 <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E7061153243554@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>, "Ananyev,
 Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, "Richardson,
 Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, "Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
 "Shelton, Benjamin H" <benjamin.h.shelton@intel.com>, "Vangati,
 Narender" <narender.vangati@intel.com>
To: "Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79EB41BAF5
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue,  3 Jul 2018 23:57:26 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E7061153243554@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

03/07/2018 17:03, Zhang, Qi Z:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> > 03/07/2018 14:59, Zhang, Qi Z:
> > > > > +do_eth_dev_attach(const char *devargs, uint16_t *port_id);
> > > >
> > > > So you are duplicating rte_eth_dev_attach which is flawed in its
> > > > design and should be deprecated...
> > >
> > > OK, just to know this, but I guess it will not be the issue, if we move the dev
> > sync mechanism into eal layer in future right?
> > 
> > Future is now :)
> > We must stop mixing devargs and port id in the same layer.
> 
> Ok, is there any RFC I can learn?

RFC for what?
It is just a design issue that we must stop propagating.

> > > > As you may have noticed, rte_eth_dev_attach() is calling
> > > > rte_eal_hotplug_add() which manages the EAL device.
> > > > It is wrong because the relation between an ethdev port and an EAL
> > > > device is not a 1:1 mapping.
> > > > We must manage the ethdev port as one of the possible abstractions
> > > > of a device represented by rte_device.