2016-11-23 05:37, Jerin Jacob: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 05:35:58PM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > On 11/21/2016 5:02 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 09:54:57AM +0000, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > >> This changes the port id assignments to the devices, right? > > >> > > >> Previously virtual devices get first available port ids (0..N1), later > > >> physical devices (N1..N2). Now this becomes reverse. > > >> > > >> Can this change break some existing user applications? > > > > > > I guess it may be effected only to ethdev bond pmd based application, > > > which is broken anyway. > > > > My concern is, this may effect the applications that use "--vdev" eal > > parameter and has an assumption about port assignment. > > Not sure. Application expectation on specific port assignment is bad anyway. > But in any event, what we do with exiting ethdev bond pmd failure. > > > > > And if this breaks any userspace application, does it require a > > deprecation notice? > > I am not sure. Thomas, Any input on this ?
Is the expectation thought by Ferruh, written somewhere? If not, we can accept this change as is in this release.
