Hello Rahul,
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Rahul Lakkireddy <
rahul.lakkireddy at chelsio.com> wrote:
> nic_uio requires the pci ids to be present in rte_pci_dev_ids.h in order to
> bind the devices to nic_uio. However, it's better to remove this
> whitelist of
> pci ids, and instead rely on hw.nic_uio.bdfs kenv parameter to allow
> binding
> any device to nic_uio.
>
> Suggested-by: David Marchand <david.marchand at 6wind.com>
> Signed-off-by: Rahul Lakkireddy <rahul.lakkireddy at chelsio.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kumar Sanghvi <kumaras at chelsio.com>
>
Hum, what bothers me is that you do not rely on the same criteria to
re-attach the devices to nic_uio.
See below.
> lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/nic_uio/nic_uio.c | 48
> +++++++++------------------------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/nic_uio/nic_uio.c
> b/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/nic_uio/nic_uio.c
> index 2354e84..f868dc8 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/nic_uio/nic_uio.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/nic_uio/nic_uio.c
> [snip]
> @@ -195,11 +177,10 @@ nic_uio_probe (device_t dev)
> {
> int i;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < NUM_DEVICES; i++)
> - if (pci_get_vendor(dev) == devices[i].vend &&
> - pci_get_device(dev) == devices[i].dev) {
> -
> - device_set_desc(dev, "Intel(R) DPDK PCI Device");
> + for (i = 0; i < num_detached; i++)
> + if (pci_get_vendor(dev) ==
> pci_get_vendor(detached_devices[i]) &&
> + pci_get_device(dev) ==
> pci_get_device(detached_devices[i])) {
> + device_set_desc(dev, "DPDK PCI Device");
> return BUS_PROBE_SPECIFIC;
> }
>
>
When going through the probe stuff, the device vendor and type are used as
the matching criteria.
@@ -256,7 +237,6 @@ static void
> nic_uio_load(void)
> {
> uint32_t bus, device, function;
> - int i;
> device_t dev;
> char bdf_str[256];
> char *token, *remaining;
> @@ -295,17 +275,15 @@ nic_uio_load(void)
> if (dev == NULL)
> continue;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < NUM_DEVICES; i++)
> - if (pci_get_vendor(dev) == devices[i].vend &&
> - pci_get_device(dev) ==
> devices[i].dev) {
> - if (num_detached <
> MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES) {
> -
> printf("nic_uio_load: detaching and storing dev=%p\n", dev);
> -
> detached_devices[num_detached++] = dev;
> - } else
> -
> printf("nic_uio_load: reached MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES=%d. dev=%p won't be
> reattached\n",
> -
> MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES, dev);
> - device_detach(dev);
> - }
> + if (num_detached < MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES) {
> + printf("nic_uio_load: detaching and storing
> dev=%p\n",
> + dev);
> + detached_devices[num_detached++] = dev;
> + } else {
> + printf("nic_uio_load: reached
> MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES=%d. dev=%p won't be reattached\n",
> + MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES, dev);
> + }
> + device_detach(dev);
> }
> }
>
But here at init time, the bdfs informations are used to detach the pci
devices.
I would say this is safer we have the same criteria in both cases.
I think that the pci addresses are the best criteria since this is what the
user gives.
Don't we have them in the dev pointer ?
Btw, with this change, we would then be limited to MAX_DETACHED_DEVICES
devices even if 128 pci devices looks quite big enough to me.
This part could be reworked (later).
--
David Marchand
