> On Feb 15, 2017, at 11:06 AM, Jan Blunck <jblu...@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> 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?
The port numbering comes from DPDK and I use that directly, was trying to avoid
a translation of real port to Pktgen port :-(
Regards,
Keith
