From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH] eal: bus scan and probe never fail Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:32:25 +0200 Message-ID: <2083909.jE3c2aJxlO@xps> References: <20170812102220.27773-1-shreyansh.jain@nxp.com> <83a3c6c6-8d50-8106-7c7f-9b5c8263ce96@nxp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Don Provan , Jan Blunck , Hemant Agrawal To: Shreyansh Jain Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8F371B1F2 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:32:27 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 11/10/2017 02:03, Don Provan: > From: Shreyansh Jain [mailto:shreyansh.jain@nxp.com] > > > > ... > > > > > From the application's point of view, the potential error here > > > is that the device it wants to use isn't available. I don't see that > > > either the init function or the probe function will have enough > > > information to understand that application-level problem, so > > > they should leave it to the application to detect it. > > > > I think I understand you comment but just want to cross check again: > > Scan or probe error should simply be ignored by EAL layer and let the > > application take stance when it detects that the device it was looking > > for is missing. Is my understanding correct? > > > > I am trying to come a conclusion so that this patch can either be > > modified or pushed as it is. If the above understanding is correct, I > > don't see any changes required in the patch. > > Yes, I agree my comments support the patch as is. > -don Applied, thanks for the discussion