Hi John, > -----Original Message----- > From: John W. Linville [mailto:linville at tuxdriver.com] > Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 6:52 PM > To: Iremonger, Bernard > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] remove pci driver from vdevs > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 08:15:47AM +0000, Iremonger, Bernard wrote: > > Hi John, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: John W. Linville [mailto:linville at tuxdriver.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 6:44 PM > > > To: Iremonger, Bernard > > > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] remove pci driver from vdevs > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 04:40:35PM +0100, Bernard Iremonger wrote: > > > > There is a dummy pci driver in the vdev PMD's at present. > > > > This RFC proposes to remove the pci driver from the vdev PMD's. > > > > Changes have been made to librte_ether to handle vdevs which do > > > > not > > > have a pci driver. > > > > > > > > The pdev PMD's should work as before with the changes to > > > > librte_ether The vdev PMD's which still have a pci driver should > > > > work as before with the > > > librte_ether changes. > > > > > > > > The following vdev PMD's have had the pci driver removed > > > > > > > > bonding PMD > > > > null PMD > > > > pcap PMD > > > > ring PMD > > > > > > Any reason there is no patch for the af_packet driver? > > > > > > John > > > > I have just modified the Intel vdev PMD's. > > It would be best if the owners of the non Intel vdev's submitted patches > for their drivers. > > What constitutes an "Intel vdev PMD"? I thought these were all part of the > DPDK project? It seems odd to me for you to pick and choose like this.
I should probably have written vdev PMD's contributed by Intel. I am not familiar with the other vdev PMD's and thought it best that they should be modified by their owners/maintainers if required. > > What is the overall purpose of this RFC? The purpose of this RFC is to remove the need for a PCI device driver from Vdev's that that do not use a PCI driver. Removing the PCI driver is implemented in the ethdev changes. I have modified some of the Vdev's to verify that the ethdev changes work. > What benefit accrues to those vdev > PMDs that implement this change? What penalty is imposed on those that > do not change? 6Wind have decided that only cleanup patches will be allowed in future for Vdevs that have a dummy PCI driver. Any change in functionality for these Vdevs will not be allowed. Please see email below from 6Wind http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-July/022107.html > > John > -- > John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you > linville at tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready. Regards, Bernard.
