My vote is to work with udev and not try to replace it. Driverctl works well. Just not for bifurcated driver
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 9:31 AM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > It's time to think (again) how we bind devices with kernel modules. > We need to decide how we want to manage hotplugged devices with DPDK. > > A bit of history first. > There was some code in DPDK for bind/unbind, but it has been removed > in DPDK 1.7 - http://dpdk.org/commit/5d8751b83 > Copy of the commit message (in 2014): > " > The bind/unbind operations should not be handled by the eal. > These operations should be either done outside of dpdk or > inside the PMDs themselves as these are their problems. > " > > The question raised at this time (4 years ago) is still under discussion. > Should we manage binding inside or outside DPDK? > Should it be controlled in the application or in the OS base? > > As you know, we use dpdk-devbind.py. > This tool lacks two major features: > - persistent configuration > - hotplug > > If we consider that the DPDK applications should be able to apply its own > policy to choose the devices to bind, then we need to implement binding > in the PMD (with EAL helpers). > > On the other hand, if we consider that it is the system responsibility, > then we could choose systemd/udev and driverctl. > > The debate is launched! > > Please find more details in the references below. > > Announce of driverctl: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-December/029500.html > Repository of driverctl: > https://gitlab.com/driverctl/driverctl > > Discussion about binding script and driverctl: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-April/095687.html > > Patch to implement binding in DPDK (for hotplug): > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-April/095714.html > > Discussion in the same hotplug series: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-April/097058.html > > > >
