24/05/2022 11:15, Thomas Monjalon пишет:
24/05/2022 11:40, Konstantin Ananyev:
20/05/2022 07:59, Andrew Rybchenko пишет:
On 5/19/22 14:26, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
19/05/2022 09:40, David Marchand:
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 1:25 AM Konstantin Ananyev
<konstantin.v.anan...@yandex.ru> wrote:
18/05/2022 18:24, David Marchand пишет:
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 12:10 PM Min Hu (Connor)
<humi...@huawei.com> wrote:
I think net/bonding offer 'API' for APP to use the bonding.
and use the specific PMD as slave device.
The software framwork is like:
APP
ethdev
bonding PMD
PMD
hardware
so, I think cmdlines for testpmd should not put in net/bonding.be
The bonding API is specific to drivers/net/bonding/,
so according to the techboard decision,
the testpmd code should go in the driver directory.
+1
Actually, I feel the same.
I do understand the intention, and I do realize it is just location,
but still doesn't look right for me.
can't we have a special sub-folder in testpmd instead?
Something like app/testpmd/driver_specific/(ixgbe)|(i40e)|(bonding)...
That should not pose a problem, indeed.
And, on the plus side, it avoids putting some testpmd global variables
in meson (which I was not entirely happy with).
I like the global variables approach.
+1
But, on the other side, I have a concern about MAINTAINERS updates.
(almost) everything in app/test-pmd has been under the testpmd
maintainer responsibility.
Separating the driver specific code from testpmd is a way to clearly
shift this responsibility to the driver maintenance.
I agree.
+1
One advantage of moving the code to the driver directory is that there
is no MAINTAINERS update needed.
Yes I think moving test code in the driver directory is smart.
We already have this approach for some self tests run with app/test.
And more important, the techboard has decided to move code in the driver
or lib directory:
https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2022-April/239191.html
Yep, I remember that discussion, though from my impression
(probably wrong) people talked more about need for some smart
testpmd plugin approach.
I didn't realize that it would mean literally dump all
current cmd-line related code straight into drivers/net.
I agree that testpmd code for PMD-specific API should be
responsibility of this PMD maintainer.
I just don't feel that drivers/net is the best place for it.
As another thing to consider: what would happen if we'll decide
to rework testpmd interface (from CLI to gRPC or so), or introduce
new app for PMD testing - would we need to inject all these things
into drivers/net too?
Yes I think it's OK to have driver-specific test code
in the driver directory.
This is what is already done for eventdev and rawdev drivers:
git ls-files drivers | grep test
Ok, if we already doing it that way for some dev types,
then probably no point to do it differently for netdev.
