On 9/7/2017 1:17 AM, Wu, Jingjing wrote: >>> >>> 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. >> > I was confused. The forwarding in testpmd setup is based on port id, right? > And all the devices listed in testpmd is etherdev, and all functional > testings are all based on port id, right? > Then what is the difference to use port id or device name in testpmd? > And if no difference, what is the difference between detach and remove? > > The only difference here I think is > Remove command is using rte_bus hotplug framework. > Attach/detach is using rte_eth_dev_detach API.
Hi Raslan, With latest code "detach" does rte_bus hotplug remove. So I believe this patch is no more required. Can you please confirm? Thanks, ferruh > > I think remove command should be an important command, and should not have > ambiguity. > At least we need to doc it clearly. > > >> 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 >
