On 7/17/2020 2:49 PM, Parav Pandit wrote: > Currently mlx5_common uses CLASS priority to initialize > common code before initializing the PMD. > However mlx5_common is not really a class, it is the pre-initialization > code needed for the PMDs. > > In subsequent patch a needed initialization sequence is: > (a) Initialize bus (say pci) > (b) Initialize common code of a driver (mlx5_common) > (c) Register mlx5 class PMDs (mlx5 net, mlx5 vdpa) > Information registered by these PMDs is used by mlx5_bus_pci PMD. > This mlx5 class PMDs should not confused with rte_class. > (d) Register mlx5 PCI bus PMD > > Hence, introduce a new RTE priority level RTE_PRIO_COMMON which > can be used for common initialization and RTE_PRIO_CLASS by mlx5 PMDs > for class driver initialization. > > Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <pa...@mellanox.com> > Acked-by: Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com> > --- > Changelog: > v2->v3: > - new patch > --- > lib/librte_eal/include/rte_common.h | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_common.h > b/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_common.h > index 8f487a563..522afe58e 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_common.h > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/include/rte_common.h > @@ -135,6 +135,7 @@ typedef uint16_t unaligned_uint16_t; > > #define RTE_PRIORITY_LOG 101 > #define RTE_PRIORITY_BUS 110 > +#define RTE_PRIORITY_COMMON 119 > #define RTE_PRIORITY_CLASS 120 > #define RTE_PRIORITY_LAST 65535 > >
I guess the name "common" selected because of the intention to use it by the common piece of the driver, but only from eal perspective the name "PRIORITY_COMMON" looks so vague, it doesn't describe any purpose. Also the value doesn't leave any gap between the class priority, what else can be needed in the future in between, right? @Thomas, @David, I am reluctant to get this eal change through the next-net, can you please review/ack it first? Thanks, ferruh
