On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 6:51 PM Juraj Linkeš <juraj.lin...@pantheon.tech> wrote: > > <removed parts which I think are not that relevant> > > > > > > > > > > The blocklist is, I think, agreed upon by everyone. The > > > > > > > > > question is whether we want to support the allowlist > > > > > > > > > alongside it and there seem to be enough reasons to do that. > > > > > > > > Sorry, may be this is answered already, but, what additional > > > > > > > > benefit does allowlist provide over the blocklist? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VPP could use it: > > > > > > > https://gerrit.fd.io/r/gitweb?p=vpp.git;a=blob;f=build/externa > > > > > > > l/pa > > > > > > > ckag es/dpdk > > > > > > > .mk;h=c35ac84c27b19411a0cfdf9a3524fdf36024762c;hb=HEAD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They're disabling almost everything so an allowlist would fit > > > > > > > there. > > > > > > > And they won't need to update the list when a new driver is > > > > > > > added (which they won't need). > > > > > > This is different from how we started this discussion. The > > > > > > current discussion was for DPDK internal use. But the one you > > > > > > are referencing above is for users of DPDK. I am fine for > > > > > > providing the allow list for the users of DPDK. But for DPDK > > > > > > internal, I think block list is > > > > enough. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's an interesting suggestion. Jerin, what do you think? Why > > > > > did you > > > > want to have an allowlist? Would this work? > > > > > > > > # The very reason why VPP chooses to have allow list so that they > > > > can control what needs to include. > > > > # Another use case is like, in SoCs have fixed internal devices, we > > > > can have optimized build for that can have only allow list of the > > > > drivers that care about # For server market, block list makes sense > > > > # For embedded SoC, allow list makes sense. > > > For the embedded SoC, IMO, the upstream project could allow the > > > compilation > > for wider set of PMDs/libs. May be the end customer can use the allow list > > to > > compile/use what is required? > > > > Just to understand, how end customer can enable allow list, if DPDK build > > system > > does not support it? > > Also to understand, If we are supporting blocklist, why not have allowlist > > (I > > mean, both of them) as both are required as it caters different use case as > > mention above. We can not emulate allowlist with blocklist as each version > > of > > DPDK will have new libraries and PMD's which end user has no clue. Right? > > > I think, that is the reason why VPP is doing the allow list. > > I'm not sure what you mean by this, but to clarify, VPP likely would be using > the allowlist in this fashion, but that is not an arm specific usecase. I > think what Honnappa wanted to see was how the allowlist could be used in an > arm usecase (such as using it in an SoC configuration).
There is nothing arm-specific here. Right? allowlist will be common and will be used by all architecture. Right? > >
