From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Panu Matilainen Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] eal: move plugin loading to eal/common Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:07:13 +0300 Message-ID: <56277FF1.5070700@redhat.com> References: <20151021111520.GA21768@bricha3-MOBL3> <3136074.xcMQgt4DKX@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Thomas Monjalon , David Marchand Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5156958A for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:07:16 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <3136074.xcMQgt4DKX@xps13> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 10/21/2015 02:53 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2015-10-21 12:15, Bruce Richardson: >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 01:09:24PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Panu Matilainen >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Btw, returning an error here would change current behavior of dpdk loading >>>>> drivers. >>>>> Not sure we want this as people may rely on this loading not failing. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yeah, dpdk currently doesn't fail if you pass garbage to -d, which is >>>> actually fairly questionable behavior. Why would you load drivers with -d >>>> if you dont care about them getting loaded? Well, maybe to handle an >>>> "everything" case but that's much better handled with the driver directory >>>> thing. >>>> >>>> So actually the current patches make things a bit inconsistent, why should >>>> driver directories cause a failure if individual drivers do not? The >>>> question is, which behavior is the one people want: I personally would >>>> rather make -dgiddy.goo fail rather than just warn and chug away but its >>>> not exactly a deal-breaker for me. >>>> >>> >>> Neither to me. >>> I agree on the principle of failing when passing wrong stuff, it is saner. >>> I just want to make sure nobody complains about this change later. >>> >>> Thomas ? Bruce ? >> >> Error early rather than later. If the -d flag doesn't work crash then, rather >> than leaving people having to scroll-back to find why their NIC isn't working. > > Yes, no reason to ignore errors. Okay so we all vigorously agree on this :) Good then, I'll fix the error behavior too in the next version. - Panu -