From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan?= Rivet Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] pci: default to whitelist mode Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:44:09 +0200 Message-ID: <20170328124409.GC7450@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> References: <1490701917-17089-1-git-send-email-gaetan.rivet@6wind.com> <1490702489-17950-1-git-send-email-gaetan.rivet@6wind.com> <20170328122000.GA24328@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Thomas Monjalon To: Bruce Richardson Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f175.google.com (mail-wr0-f175.google.com [209.85.128.175]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F0736E for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:44:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr0-f175.google.com with SMTP id w43so89083665wrb.0 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 05:44:19 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170328122000.GA24328@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 01:20:00PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: >On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 02:01:29PM +0200, Gaetan Rivet wrote: >> Expects all devices to be explicitly defined before being probed. >> >> The blacklist mode can be prone to errors, coaxing users in capturing >> devices that could be used for management or otherwise. >> The whitelist mode offers users more control and highlight mistakes by >> making them visible on the command line. >> >> This is more useful to have a clear idea of the state of the system used, >> which is better in the context of standalone / headless applications. >> >> Using the -b option will revert to the original behavior. >> >> Signed-off-by: Gaetan Rivet >> --- >> v2: justify this default behavior evolution. >> --- > >I don't have major objections to this patch, though it does make it >mandatory to use port parameters where before it was not. The one >suggestion I will make is that, if we take this approach, we should >probably add a --wl-all (whitelist-all) flag to go back to having all >ports automatically bound, if so desired. > Are there use cases where the blacklist mode would be used without blacklisting any device? The current -b option is almost enough for the same level of functionality. If there is an actual need to a full PCI probe, adding this option is certainly possible. I was thinking otherwise of allowing "all" as an argument to -w, which would have our users using -wall or -w=all, which seems clear enough. This would essentially be the inverse of the --no-pci parameter. Which could probably be removed if this patch is accepted. -- Gaëtan Rivet 6WIND