On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 06:18:34PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 23/08/2017 17:09, Gaëtan Rivet: > > Hello Raslan, > > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 05:37:04PM +0300, Raslan Darawsheh wrote: > > > Added hotplug in testpmd, to be able to test hotplug function > > > in the PMD's. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Raslan Darawsheh <rasl...@mellanox.com> > [...] > > > --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c > > > +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c > > > @@ -716,6 +716,9 @@ static void cmd_help_long_parsed(void *parsed_result, > > > "port config (port_id|all) l2-tunnel E-tag" > > > " (enable|disable)\n" > > > " Enable/disable the E-tag support.\n\n" > > > + > > > + " device remove (device)\n" > > > + " Remove a device" > > > > I think it should still be a part of the "port" command set (port > > attach|detach|stop|close, etc). > > I tend to disagree. > As far as I know, we use port for ethdev or cryptodev. > Here we want to deal with EAL rte_device. >
I see, that makes sense. I will redo the review with that in mind. > > This would probably be easier to understand for users. > > [...] > > Continuing on using the port ... > > format, then the port_id should allow to remove it instead of the device > > identifier. > > Using the device identifier will complexify your implementation. > [...] > > eth_dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id]; > > bus = rte_bus_find_by_device(eth_dev->device); > > Note that we are going to remove eth_dev->device which implies eth_dev > but maybe also more device interfaces for the same HW. > That's why I think we need to distinguish port and device somehow. -- Gaëtan Rivet 6WIND
