> From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, 2 March 2026 10.02 > > 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
I haven't been following this discussion, so I might me completely off here. IIUC, this option is used for specifying which devices to probe. (And as a side effect disables auto-probing of all devices.) When naming it, please take a fresh view. Imagine you are defining this option and an auto-probe option. The discussion assumes the user is familiar with auto-probe, and expects auto-probe. Don't design based on that. -Morten
