2015-10-21 12:15, Bruce Richardson: > 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.
Yes, no reason to ignore errors.
