From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] eal: postpone vdev initialization
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 14:29:02 +0100
Message-ID: <3518071.fzfrLgvdRN@xps13>
References: <1479628850-27202-1-git-send-email-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
 <fb64cdec-f086-896a-3463-6d23bdea440b@intel.com>
 <20161123000740.GA22068@svelivela-lt.caveonetworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, declan.doherty@intel.com, david.marchand@6wind.com
To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
 Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com (mail-wm0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5CCF29D6
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 14:29:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f44.google.com with SMTP id f82so23870563wmf.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 05:29:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20161123000740.GA22068@svelivela-lt.caveonetworks.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>

2016-11-23 05:37, Jerin Jacob:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 05:35:58PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > On 11/21/2016 5:02 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 09:54:57AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > >> This changes the port id assignments to the devices, right?
> > >>
> > >> Previously virtual devices get first available port ids (0..N1), later
> > >> physical devices (N1..N2). Now this becomes reverse.
> > >>
> > >> Can this change break some existing user applications?
> > > 
> > > I guess it may be effected only to ethdev bond pmd based application,
> > > which is broken anyway.
> > 
> > My concern is, this may effect the applications that use "--vdev" eal
> > parameter and has an assumption about port assignment.
> 
> Not sure. Application expectation on specific port assignment is bad anyway.
> But in any event, what we do with exiting ethdev bond pmd failure.
> 
> > 
> > And if this breaks any userspace application, does it require a
> > deprecation notice?
> 
> I am not sure. Thomas, Any input on this ?

Is the expectation thought by Ferruh, written somewhere?
If not, we can accept this change as is in this release.