From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] af_packet: make the device detachable
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:25:13 -0500
Message-ID: <20160210182512.GF9266@tuxdriver.com>
References: <1452002675-8919-1-git-send-email-woz@semihalf.com>
 <1455034146-24036-1-git-send-email-woz@semihalf.com>
 <20160209163731.GA4308@bricha3-MOBL3>
 <CAAaY-jmb8sxpTMtBddpB5ukW9Q0QevZjU_u-W=WzSBf3xJTGSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Wojciech =?utf-8?B?xbttdWRh?= <woz@semihalf.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F24DC56A9
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:30:15 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAaY-jmb8sxpTMtBddpB5ukW9Q0QevZjU_u-W=WzSBf3xJTGSQ@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 04:42:53PM +0100, Wojciech =C5=BBmuda wrote:

> Bernard, Bruce, I have a question, if I may. Do you know what is the
> reason that rte_pmd_af_packet_devinit() is the only non-static device
> initialization function among all the dpdk drivers? There's even a
> comment in the rte_eth_af_packet.h:
>=20
> /**
>  * For use by the EAL only. Called as part of EAL init to set up any du=
mmy NICs
>  * configured on command line.
>  */
> int rte_pmd_af_packet_devinit(const char *name, const char *params);
>=20
> Despite the comment above, I cannot see this function being called
> directly anywhere. Is there any reason it is implemented this way? Or
> should I change the definition to static, as it should be called via
> proper API functions?

The af_packet driver structure was essentially copied from the pcap
driver.  Way in the past there was the EAL initialization of the
"virtual" drivers, and the original af_packet code hooked into that.
Somewhere along the way the driver initialization code changed and
I guess the EAL initialization bits disappeared.  The comment above
rte_pmd_af_packet_devinit was overlooked.

Long story, short -- I think you can remove the comment and add the
static modifier and everything will be fine.

John
--=20
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@tuxdriver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.