From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Wiles, Keith" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] eal: move virtual device probing into a bus Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:10:22 +0000 Message-ID: <7F1E2AAB-BDF3-4164-8BCE-117B6DA5FF2E@intel.com> References: <1487152929-23627-1-git-send-email-jblunck@infradead.org> <1487152929-23627-4-git-send-email-jblunck@infradead.org> <485202cf-3644-5ee9-45b5-d443569bf5b5@nxp.com> <7843A545-14B6-4CD9-9689-ABD123B85890@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Shreyansh Jain , "dev@dpdk.org" To: Jan Blunck Return-path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4C0A37A8 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:10:26 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Content-ID: 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 Feb 15, 2017, at 11:06 AM, Jan Blunck wrote: >=20 > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Wiles, Keith wro= te: >>=20 >>> On Feb 15, 2017, at 8:15 AM, Shreyansh Jain wr= ote: >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Just ignore this comment - I am misunderstood something. >>>=20 >>> But another question: Is there specific reason VDEV should be registere= d/scanned *after* other devices? Is there some specific problem if we do ot= herwise? (I think this is should be done, but I don't have a specific reaso= n). >>=20 >=20 > Just for context: the vdev's are probed after the physical devices > because of commit f4ce209a ("eal: postpone vdev initialization"). >=20 >> Does the bonding driver which uses physical devices need to be registere= d after physical ones? In Pktgen I noticed the vdev after the physical port= s and I could not blacklist them as the bonding driver needed them, which c= aused the bonding ports to have a greater port number. In the case of pktge= n the bonding ports were up around 8 or 10 and caused the display to not sh= ow the bonding ports. This is really just a usability problem for the devel= oper using Pktgen. I would like to see the vdev devices first, but as long = as the drivers (like bonding) are fine with them being first. >>=20 >=20 > The bonding devargs might specify slaves that get attached during > device probe. If the referenced devices are physical interfaces we > need to probe them first. This is really a chicken-egg-problem. >=20 > Maybe you could improve the usability in your case and sort the > virtual devices first or even hide enslaved ports? The port numbering comes from DPDK and I use that directly, was trying to a= void a translation of real port to Pktgen port :-( Regards, Keith