From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pernas Maradei Subject: Re: White listing a virtual device Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 13:39:52 +0000 Message-ID: <545CCBA8.7030900@emutex.com> References: <545CBCE0.2030806@emutex.com> <2085190.a5sr9ou3P7@xps13> <545CC581.40309@emutex.com> <20141107132618.GD25469@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: Neil Horman Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20141107132618.GD25469-B26myB8xz7F8NnZeBjwnZQMhkBWG/bsMQH7oEaQurus@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" On 07/11/14 13:26, Neil Horman wrote: > Then you create the pcap device with --vdev, and simply don't load the pmds for > any of your physical devices (or just don't use pci-whitelist at all if you're > doing a static build). If you do that, then the corresponding niantic driver > won't initialize any of the hardware, you'll only get the pcap port. > > Neil Hi Neil, What you are saying is just another way to black list the ports I don't want to use. I'm aware of that option (as well as using the -b option) but in our particular case we have several systems under test with different configurations and we want to use this virtual port only. Which seems to be a perfect use case for white listing rather than black listing or modifying the system configuration. As far as I remember this option was available in previous versions. Thanks, Nico.