From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan?= Rivet Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ethdev: introduce device removal event Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 14:20:10 +0200 Message-ID: <20170502122010.GF14914@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> References: <20170425090536.GS14914@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> <1493717377.6Zc0AIm2Fr@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Jan Blunck , dev@dpdk.org, Billy McFall , Olivier MATZ , Ferruh Yigit , Elad Persiko To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com (mail-wm0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 434C53B5 for ; Tue, 2 May 2017 14:20:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f52.google.com with SMTP id m123so17683681wma.0 for ; Tue, 02 May 2017 05:20:18 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1493717377.6Zc0AIm2Fr@xps> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 11:18:06AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >02/05/2017 09:35, Jan Blunck: >> Am 25.04.2017 11:06 schrieb "Gaëtan Rivet" : >> >> Hi Ferruh, >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 03:59:24PM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >> >> > On 4/18/2017 1:17 PM, Gaetan Rivet wrote: >> > >> >> This new API allows reacting to a device removal. >> >> A device removal is the sudden disappearance of a device from its >> >> bus. >> >> >> > >> I don't think this belongs into ethdev. If it is bus related we need to >> expose this from it so that apps can register for the low level device >> being unplugged. > >Yes it sounds right. >We could work on device notifications. >We need to find a way of notifying the application that there is a >device event and that it affects one or more port at >ethdev/cryptodev/eventdev level. This is interesting. I developed this event with an easier integration in v17.05 in mind. It needs a proper generic implementation however (as suggested in [1]). I tried to have this discussion earlier[2], but without much interest. However, even with a bus-level event framework, we still need a way for drivers to advertize their support for specific events, and we still need to differentiate devices that are ready for specific events from those that do not. So I agree that it would be interesting to have a generic rte_device level interrupt framework to support generic events accross the whole board, but I'm not sure it would make the dichotomy between the *driver support* flag and the *device enabled* flag disappear. Regards, -- [1]: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-April/064190.html [2]: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-March/060998.html -- Gaëtan Rivet 6WIND