On 10/21/2015 02:53 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 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.
Okay so we all vigorously agree on this :) Good then, I'll fix the error
behavior too in the next version.
- Panu -
