Hi Gaetan From: Gaëtan Rivet, Monday, January 8, 2018 3:30 PM > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 12:30:19PM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote: > > > > > > From: Gaëtan Rivet, Monday, January 8, 2018 1:40 PM > > > Hi Matan, > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 09:45:51AM +0000, Matan Azrad wrote: > > > > Testpmd should not use ethdev ports which are managed by other > > > > DPDK entities. > > > > > > > > Set Testpmd ownership to each port which is not used by other > > > > entity and prevent any usage of ethdev ports which are not owned by > Testpmd. > > > > > > > > > > This patch should not be necessary. > > > > > > Ideally, your API evolution should not impact the default case. As > > > such, the default iterator RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV should still be used in > testpmd. > > > > > Why? We want to adjust testpmd to the port ownership. > > > > This adjustment should be seamless for existing application. > > > > RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV should call > RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV_OWNED_BY, with > > > the default owner (meaning that it would thus iterate on the > > > application-owned set of device). > > > > > > > It will break the API (we already talked about it). > > There is not any default owner: > > Any DPDK entity includes applications must to allocate an owner ID and use > it to own the ports they wants to use. > > The application can include more than 1 owner depends on the user needs. > > Each DPDK entity which can synchronize all its port usage can be a valid > DPDK entity for the ownership mechanism. > > > > That's the point of my remark: you did not include a default owner. > I think there should be one, and that all ports should pertain to this default > owner by default when created. > > This would not prevent a user or application from adding new owners specific > to their use and specialize ports if need be. > > However, for other applications that do not care for this specialization, they > should run with the current API and avoid the ports that are configured by > other third parties. >
RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV means iterate over all devices and should stay as is in my opinion. I understand your concern about changes in current application, But your "default" suggestion will cause to "non-default" applications to reset all the default owners and will complicate them and hurt semantics. > I'm thinking about applications already written that would be used with fail- > safe ports: they would use RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV, and would thus iterate > over every ports, including those owned by the fail-safe, unless they start > following the new API. > They should start, it is really not complicated. What's about application which use count=rte_eth_dev_count and iterate over all ports from 0 to count-1? We cannot save all the wrong application options. > This is unnecessary: adding a default owner for all created ports and > redefining RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV as follow > > #define RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV(i) > RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV_OWNED_BY(i, RTE_ETH_DEFAULT_OWNER) > > Is simple enough and will simplify the work of DPDK users. Moreover, it > would make fail-safe compatible with all applications using > RTE_ETH_FOREACH_DEV without additional evolution. It would actually make > any code using your API supported by those same applications, which I think > would help its adoption. > Will break API, will hurt semantic of FOREACH , and will complicate ownership care applications as I wrote above. > -- > Gaëtan Rivet > 6WIND
