On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.j...@nxp.com> wrote: > On Monday 27 February 2017 06:39 PM, Jan Blunck wrote: >> >> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Jan Blunck <jblu...@infradead.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> With the rte_bus infrastructure present in 17.02 it is possible to >>> refactor >>> the virtual device probing into a bus. This series also introduces the >>> rte_vdev_device to better keep track of devices. >>> >>> This patchset depends on: >>> http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/20416/ >>> http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/20417/ >>> >>> Changes since version 2: >>> * implicit bus registration through rte_eal_vdrv_register() >> >> >> On a second thought I don't think that this is correct though since it >> opens up the possibility of racing an alternative "virtual" bus. I >> don't think that this is a good thing though. I'll fix this in v4. >> >> Thoughts? > > > I prefer the RTE_REGISTER* way. > The issue of duplicate bus remains whether we use the macro or the > implicit way. > > If you use RTE_*, do you think that duplicate registration issue > is worth fixing? > (It would mean rte_bus_register to return error which the caller > would then need to handle). >
I don't think that there is a good way to handle this if we use the library constructors. It is better to fail the registration of the bus and log the error via RTE_LOG(). That introduces a dependency on the initialization of the logging system to be available before the library constructors run (before main()).
