Hi Thomas, > How did you test this feature? > Did you see some performance differences with igb_uio?
The same way everything else is tested - bind a NIC to the driver and see if it works :-) As for performance differences, potentially it can be degraded a bit because of mandatory IOMMU involvement, but I did not see any performance impact during my tests. > For history reason, it's better to explain in another patch that eal_hpet has > been renamed eal_timer and there is no such need anymore in this file. Agreed. > > We should discuss a way to request igb_uio or VFIO binding of a device. Why? The device can either be bound to VFIO or igb_uio. So unless you want binding code in DPDK EAL (to avoid which the pci_unbind/igb_uio_bind/dpdk_bind script was created in the first place), I see no point in that. The dpdk_bind script already does that (you bind either to igb_uio or to vfio-pci). > This whole socket communication deserves a separated patch with protocol > description. Agreed, I'll break it up and provide a more detailed explanation. > By the way, I'm not a big fan of the suffix "_socket" which can be misleading. > But I have no other good naming idea. Would _mp_socket do? > So we have another thread to manage. > I don't see where it is spawned? In rte_eal_pci_init(). > You are defining some variables in a .h file. I think it is a problem. Well, they need to be shared between several .c files. > Here are some other relevant errors from checkpatch.pl: Thanks, I'll fix those. Best regards, Anatoly Burakov DPDK SW Engineer
