On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 01:09:24PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Panu Matilainen <pmatilai at redhat.com> > wrote: > > > > Btw, returning an error here would change current behavior of dpdk loading > >> drivers. > >> Not sure we want this as people may rely on this loading not failing. > >> > > > > Yeah, dpdk currently doesn't fail if you pass garbage to -d, which is > > actually fairly questionable behavior. Why would you load drivers with -d > > if you dont care about them getting loaded? Well, maybe to handle an > > "everything" case but that's much better handled with the driver directory > > thing. > > > > So actually the current patches make things a bit inconsistent, why should > > driver directories cause a failure if individual drivers do not? The > > question is, which behavior is the one people want: I personally would > > rather make -dgiddy.goo fail rather than just warn and chug away but its > > not exactly a deal-breaker for me. > > > > Neither to me. > I agree on the principle of failing when passing wrong stuff, it is saner. > I just want to make sure nobody complains about this change later. > > Thomas ? Bruce ? >
Error early rather than later. If the -d flag doesn't work crash then, rather than leaving people having to scroll-back to find why their NIC isn't working. /Bruce
