03/07/2018 14:59, Zhang, Qi Z: > > > +/** > > > + * this is a synchronous wrapper for secondary process send > > > + * request to primary process, this is invoked when an attach > > > + * or detach request issued from primary. > > > + */ > > > +int eth_dev_request_to_primary(struct eth_dev_mp_req *req); > > > + > > > +/** > > > + * this is a synchronous wrapper for primary process send > > > + * request to secondary process, this is invoked when an attach > > > + * or detach request issued from secondary process. > > > + */ > > > +int eth_dev_request_to_secondary(struct eth_dev_mp_req *req); > > > > > > Why do we need ethdev functions for IPC (mp request/response)? > > How this model can reasonnably scale to other device classes (crypto, > > compression, bbdev, eventdev, etc)? > > Yes it will be more generic to more the multi-process device sync mechanism > into eal layer.(rte_eal_hotplug_add/rte_eal_hotplug_remove) > I didn't do this is I'm not very sure if all anothers kinds of device type > need this, but if you think this is a good direction and we need to enable > for all devices, > I think this could be our next step. BTW, I guess ethdev still need some IPC > to sync port_id which is specific for itself, and other device type may have > similar requirement.
I don't understand what is specific to ethdev in this IPC. If it is just about a port id, I think it can be done elsewhere (EAL?) > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/ethdev_private.h > > > > What is the purpose of a file ethdev_private.h? You did not reply this question. > > > +do_eth_dev_attach(const char *devargs, uint16_t *port_id); > > > > So you are duplicating rte_eth_dev_attach which is flawed in its design and > > should be deprecated... > > OK, just to know this, but I guess it will not be the issue, if we move the > dev sync mechanism into eal layer in future right? Future is now :) We must stop mixing devargs and port id in the same layer. > > As you may have noticed, rte_eth_dev_attach() is calling > > rte_eal_hotplug_add() which manages the EAL device. > > It is wrong because the relation between an ethdev port and an EAL device is > > not a 1:1 mapping. > > We must manage the ethdev port as one of the possible abstractions of a > > device represented by rte_device.
