This patch is still in patchwork and was never applied.
Much has changed over the last 5 years, and the syntax of devargs
and usage has changed.
If nothing else the terminolgy needs to be fixed and resubmitted.
25/01/2018 15:41, Yuanhan Liu:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 05:57:34PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 24/01/2018 16:04, Yuanhan Liu:
> > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:37:31AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 24/01/2018 11:36, Yuanhan Liu:
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:21:44AM +0100, Thom
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 05:57:34PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 24/01/2018 16:04, Yuanhan Liu:
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:37:31AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 24/01/2018 11:36, Yuanhan Liu:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:21:44AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > > 24/01/2018 1
24/01/2018 16:04, Yuanhan Liu:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:37:31AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 24/01/2018 11:36, Yuanhan Liu:
> > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:21:44AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 24/01/2018 10:28, Yuanhan Liu:
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 09:19:10AM +0100, Thom
24/01/2018 16:24, Yuanhan Liu:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 05:08:16PM +0100, Gaëtan Rivet wrote:
> > Drivers answers to a specific API (ethdev, cryptodev, ...), to create
> > standardized objects in response to parameters that are given to them
> > for init. I think matching properties should be rest
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 05:08:16PM +0100, Gaëtan Rivet wrote:
> Drivers answers to a specific API (ethdev, cryptodev, ...), to create
> standardized objects in response to parameters that are given to them
> for init. I think matching properties should be restricted to higher
> classes (bus, eth/cr
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:37:31AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 24/01/2018 11:36, Yuanhan Liu:
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:21:44AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 24/01/2018 10:28, Yuanhan Liu:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 09:19:10AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > > 24/01/2018 0
24/01/2018 11:36, Yuanhan Liu:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:21:44AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 24/01/2018 10:28, Yuanhan Liu:
> > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 09:19:10AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 24/01/2018 07:43, Yuanhan Liu:
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 03:29:34PM +0100, Thom
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:21:44AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 24/01/2018 10:28, Yuanhan Liu:
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 09:19:10AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 24/01/2018 07:43, Yuanhan Liu:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 03:29:34PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > > 23/01/2018 1
24/01/2018 10:28, Yuanhan Liu:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 09:19:10AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 24/01/2018 07:43, Yuanhan Liu:
> > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 03:29:34PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 23/01/2018 13:46, Yuanhan Liu:
> > > > > If port not found, then the whole string will
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 09:19:10AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 24/01/2018 07:43, Yuanhan Liu:
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 03:29:34PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 23/01/2018 13:46, Yuanhan Liu:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:46:23AM +0100, Gaëtan Rivet wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 18,
24/01/2018 07:43, Yuanhan Liu:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 03:29:34PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 23/01/2018 13:46, Yuanhan Liu:
> > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:46:23AM +0100, Gaëtan Rivet wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:46:29AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > > 18/01/2018 08:3
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 03:29:34PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 23/01/2018 13:46, Yuanhan Liu:
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:46:23AM +0100, Gaëtan Rivet wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:46:29AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 18/01/2018 08:35, Yuanhan Liu:
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 17,
23/01/2018 18:37, Gaëtan Rivet:
> So your proposition is more flexible, but I do not see how "driver" will
> be used for matching. I guess I'll see.
For now, I am not sure there are real examples of driver-specific
properties to match.
An example in my mind: Napatech can have ports with the same P
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 06:22:53PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 23/01/2018 17:08, Gaëtan Rivet:
> > Hi Yuanhan, Thomas,
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 03:29:34PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 23/01/2018 13:46, Yuanhan Liu:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:46:23AM +0100, Gaëtan Rivet wr
23/01/2018 17:08, Gaëtan Rivet:
> Hi Yuanhan, Thomas,
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 03:29:34PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 23/01/2018 13:46, Yuanhan Liu:
> > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:46:23AM +0100, Gaëtan Rivet wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:46:29AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
Hi Yuanhan, Thomas,
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 03:29:34PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 23/01/2018 13:46, Yuanhan Liu:
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:46:23AM +0100, Gaëtan Rivet wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:46:29AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 18/01/2018 08:35, Yuanhan Liu:
> >
23/01/2018 13:46, Yuanhan Liu:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:46:23AM +0100, Gaëtan Rivet wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:46:29AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 18/01/2018 08:35, Yuanhan Liu:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:34:08PM +, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > > > > So does it make se
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:46:23AM +0100, Gaëtan Rivet wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:46:29AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 18/01/2018 08:35, Yuanhan Liu:
> > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:34:08PM +, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > > > So does it make sense to separate them logically? Perhaps a
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:46:29AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 18/01/2018 08:35, Yuanhan Liu:
> > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:34:08PM +, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > > So does it make sense to separate them logically? Perhaps as "device
> > > identifier"
> > > and "device args".
> >
> > Then I
18/01/2018 08:35, Yuanhan Liu:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:34:08PM +, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > So does it make sense to separate them logically? Perhaps as "device
> > identifier"
> > and "device args".
>
> Then I think it returns back to the old issue: how could we identify a
> port when the
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:34:08PM +, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 1/16/2018 2:50 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > This patch documents the new devargs syntax, which is going to be
> > implemented in DPDK v18.05.
> >
> > The new devargs proposal is introduced for having a consistent
> > interface for:
>
On 1/16/2018 2:50 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> This patch documents the new devargs syntax, which is going to be
> implemented in DPDK v18.05.
>
> The new devargs proposal is introduced for having a consistent
> interface for:
>
> - whitelisting/blacklisting devices
> - identifying ports
> - attachin
17/01/2018 11:11, Gaëtan Rivet:
> A new suggestion about the syntax.
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:50:18PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > This patch documents the new devargs syntax, which is going to be
> > implemented in DPDK v18.05.
> >
> > The new devargs proposal is introduced for having a c
A new suggestion about the syntax.
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:50:18PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> This patch documents the new devargs syntax, which is going to be
> implemented in DPDK v18.05.
>
> The new devargs proposal is introduced for having a consistent
> interface for:
>
> - whitelisting
17/01/2018 10:37, Gaëtan Rivet:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 01:03:50AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 17/01/2018 00:46, Gaëtan Rivet:
> > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:22:43AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 17/01/2018 00:19, Gaëtan Rivet:
> > > > > It might be a nitpick, but
Hi Thomas,
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 01:03:50AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 17/01/2018 00:46, Gaëtan Rivet:
> > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:22:43AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 17/01/2018 00:19, Gaëtan Rivet:
> > > > It might be a nitpick, but the driver specific properties might not
> > >
17/01/2018 00:46, Gaëtan Rivet:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:22:43AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 17/01/2018 00:19, Gaëtan Rivet:
> > > It might be a nitpick, but the driver specific properties might not
> > > follow the key/value pair syntax. At least for the fail-safe, a custom
> > > parsing
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:22:43AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 17/01/2018 00:19, Gaëtan Rivet:
> > Hi Yuanhan,
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:50:18PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > > +The ``devargs`` can be used for whitelisting/blacklisting devices,
> > > identifying
> > > +DPDK ports and
17/01/2018 00:19, Gaëtan Rivet:
> Hi Yuanhan,
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:50:18PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > +The ``devargs`` can be used for whitelisting/blacklisting devices,
> > identifying
> > +DPDK ports and attaching/deatching devices. They all share the same syntax.
> > +
> > +It is
Hi Yuanhan,
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:50:18PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> This patch documents the new devargs syntax, which is going to be
> implemented in DPDK v18.05.
>
> The new devargs proposal is introduced for having a consistent
> interface for:
>
> - whitelisting/blacklisting devices
>
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Yuanhan Liu
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 2:50 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Thomas Monjalon ; Yuanhan Liu
>
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: document the new devargs syntax
>
> T
This patch documents the new devargs syntax, which is going to be
implemented in DPDK v18.05.
The new devargs proposal is introduced for having a consistent
interface for:
- whitelisting/blacklisting devices
- identifying ports
- attaching/detaching devices
Please check the patch content for the
33 matches
Mail list logo
