On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:30:47AM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 8/28/2017 10:55 AM, Gaëtan Rivet wrote: > > Hi Raslan, > > > > Redoing the review with the remarks from Thomas in mind. > > > > 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> > >> --- > >> app/test-pmd/cmdline.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> app/test-pmd/testpmd.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > >> app/test-pmd/testpmd.h | 1 + > >> 3 files changed, 63 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c > >> index cd8c358..b32a368 100644 > >> --- 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" > > > > I think (device) might be hard to understand for a user. > > Maybe (device name)? > > I am suspicious on adding new root level command to testpmd, it is > getting bigger, each command looks OK on its own context, but as a whole > app getting more confusing [1]. > > Since dealing with device is kind of new, it can be OK to create new > command tree, but there are already hotplug commands per port: > "port attach #PCI|#VDEV_NAME" > "port detach #P" >
Those two commands deal with the etherdev hotplug API. The new command should test the rte_dev one. As Thomas pointed out, the etherdev one deals only with eth ports, while hotplug could be generalized to other devices, such as cryptodev. > perhaps it can be good to keep "attach", "detach" keywords for device to > be consistent? > > "device attach #name" > "device detach #name" > I made a point of naming the hotplug operations in rte_bus plug/unplug to avoid the confusion with the etherdev API. hotplug_add / hotplug_remove also marks the distinction. I don't know if it would be helpful for a developer writing a PMD, searching for a way to test a functionality to have an API name mismatch. > Also a show equivalent can be added to work in device level: > "show device info" > I think it would be useful. > > [1] > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-August/072764.html > > -- Gaëtan Rivet 6WIND
