Hi Tetsuya, Thanks for your comment.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa at igel.co.jp> wrote: > On 2015/02/20 19:14, Maxime Leroy wrote: >> Hi Tetsuya, [...] >> > > Hi Maxime, > > I appreciate for your comment. > > When rte_eal_init() is called, if we have "--vdev" options, these will > be stored in vdevargs as you describe above. > I agree this is the current behavior of DPDK. > > When we call hotplug functions, I guess doing same thing will be more > consistent design. The rte_eal_devargs_add is here to store a white list parameters for later creating the devices. It means that the devargs_list is only needed at the init to store the devargs parsed . I think we should not use the devargs_list after eal initialization. Why you want to add devargs in the devargs_list, if there are no needs to store this information ? At the end, it adds extra codes for nothing. > > For example, we can do like below. > 1. $ ./testpmd --vdev 'eth_pcap' -- -i > 2. testpmd>port detach It's exactly the same for physical device: 1. $./testpmd -w 0000:08:00:1 -- -i 2. testpmd> port detach But you don't call rte_eal_devargs_add with RTE_DEVTYPE_WHILISTED_PCI in rte_eal_dev_attach_pdev ? Thus it makes the hotplug implementation not coherent for me. What do you think ? Regards, Maxime