On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 02:10:45PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 13:51:48 +0000 > Bruce Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 02:43:46PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 26/02/2026 17:50, Robin Jarry: > > > > David Marchand, Feb 26, 2026 at 17:20: > > > > > Some applications use port hotplug as their primary way for using DPDK > > > > > resources. > > > > > Having a systematic device probing is a problem when not all available > > > > > resources will be used by the application, as such applications won't > > > > > set > > > > > an explicit allow list at startup. > > > > > > > > > > This is the case for OVS on systems with multiple mlx5 devices: > > > > > one device can be used by the kernel while the other(s) are used by > > > > > DPDK. > > > > > In such a setup, the kernel used device may get reconfigured in > > > > > unexpected ways and trigger issues like the one described by Kevin > > > > > not so long ago in bugzilla 1873. > > > > > > > > > > Add an EAL option so that we can change the default behavior from > > > > > block-listing to allow-listing. > > > [...] > > > > > + const char * const argv29[] = {prgname, prefix, mp_flag, > > > > > eal_debug_logs, > > > > > + "--allow-explicitly" }; > > > > > > > > I am not convinced by the option name. What do you think of: > > > > > > > > --no-autoprobe > > > > > > > > That would match the Linux sriov_drivers_autoprobe sysfs. > > > > > > The name --no-autoprobe is better indeed. > > > > > > The exact effect of this option is to disable initial probing > > > of devices on all buses (except vdev). > > > Another name could be --no-initial-probing > > > > > > I think we should add the opposite option as well > > > to allow changing the default mode later. > > > For such an option, --autoprobe looks better than --initial-probing. > > > > > > Other opinions? > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > Depending on what option name we settle on, could you add a short flag > > > > too? E.g.: > > > > > > > > BOOL_ARG("--no-autoprobe", "-N", "Disable automatic probing of > > > > non-blocked devices", no_autoprobe) > > > > > > > > Or: > > > > > > > > BOOL_ARG("--no-autoprobe", "-P", "Disable automatic probing of > > > > non-blocked devices", no_autoprobe) > > > > > > I don't see the benefit of a short flag. > > > It makes reading commands less obvious. > > > > > I actually would prefer to have a short option available, and I'd really > > like that short option to be "-A" since it serves as the perfect addition > > to the "-a" flag to specify devices to probe. > > > > Based on that, I would look for long options which allow "-A" as the short > > version for example: > > > > --allowlisted-devs-only > > > > /Bruce > > Also if -b or --block-list become a no op with --no-autoprobe. So it should > be a warning?
Yes, I think a warning about ignored parameter would be appropriate. /Bruce
