On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Wiles, Keith <keith.wi...@intel.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 15, 2017, at 8:15 AM, Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.j...@nxp.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Just ignore this comment - I am misunderstood something.
>>
>> But another question: Is there specific reason VDEV should be
>> registered/scanned *after* other devices? Is there some specific problem if
>> we do otherwise? (I think this is should be done, but I don't have a
>> specific reason).
>
Just for context: the vdev's are probed after the physical devices
because of commit f4ce209a ("eal: postpone vdev initialization").
> Does the bonding driver which uses physical devices need to be registered
> after physical ones? In Pktgen I noticed the vdev after the physical ports
> and I could not blacklist them as the bonding driver needed them, which
> caused the bonding ports to have a greater port number. In the case of pktgen
> the bonding ports were up around 8 or 10 and caused the display to not show
> the bonding ports. This is really just a usability problem for the developer
> using Pktgen. I would like to see the vdev devices first, but as long as the
> drivers (like bonding) are fine with them being first.
>
The bonding devargs might specify slaves that get attached during
device probe. If the referenced devices are physical interfaces we
need to probe them first. This is really a chicken-egg-problem.
Maybe you could improve the usability in your case and sort the
virtual devices first or even hide enslaved ports?
