Hi
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
> On 7/20/2020 5:48 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 20/07/2020 18:21, Ferruh Yigit:
> >> 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.
> >
> > You're right.
> >
> >> Also the value doesn't leave any gap between the class priority, what else
> can
> >> be needed in the future in between, right?
> >
> > And we can imagine a bus requiring a common lib
> > to be initialized before.
> >
> >> @Thomas, @David, I am reluctant to get this eal change through the next-
> net, can
> >> you please review/ack it first?
> >
> > What about skipping this patch and using "RTE_PRIORITY_CLASS - 1"
> > in the code?
> >
>
> For now I think it is OK, in the future if more priority dependency involved
> we
> can define the macro.
>
I'm concerned what if someone else will add priority there may be conflict and.
Also using -1 means that no one knows that there is use in such priority.
What about setting the value to 115?
