Re: [RFC v2 1/9] usertools: add DPDK config lib python library

From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Cc: "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
	"Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
	dev <dev@dpdk.org>, "Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>,
	"De Lara Guarch, Pablo" <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>,
	"Hunt, David" <david.hunt@intel.com>,
	"Awal, Mohammad Abdul" <mohammad.abdul.awal@intel.com>,
	"Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/9] usertools: add DPDK config lib python library
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 15:55:55 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2017620.fyvpj9GtK5@xps> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c45d2313-6ea4-28a1-f7c5-6892a685eefb@intel.com>

16/11/2018 15:37, Burakov, Anatoly:
> On 16-Nov-18 2:13 PM, Richardson, Bruce wrote:
> > From: Wiles, Keith
> >>> On Nov 16, 2018, at 5:49 AM, Burakov, Anatoly
> >>> On 16-Nov-18 12:45 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >>>> Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com> wrote:
> >>>>> This is a placeholder for Python library abstracting away many of
> >>>>> mundane details DPDK configuration scripts have to deal with. We
> >>>>> need __init__.py file to make the subdirectory a package so that
> >>>>> Python scripts in usertools/ can find their dependencies.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
> >>>> 
> >>>> Doing this a better than current code, but can we go farther?
> >>>> I would like DPDK to get out of doing binds directly and switch to
> >>>> using driverctl which also handles persistent rebind on reboot.
> >>>
> >>> Wasn't the objection that it's not available everywhere? (for the
> >>> record, i have no horse in the race - i don't much care exactly how
> >>> it's done)
> >>
> >> If it works on FreeBSD and Linux then I am all for it. On windows does it
> >> support this method too?
> > 
> > Binding and unbinding is completely different on each OS. FreeBSD has no overlap
> > of scripts with Linux, so replacing some of our tools with driverctl won't affect
> > that OS.
> > 
> > /Bruce
> 
> ...however, we could abstract that away in our tools, and use 
> OS-appropriate tools independently of what we're running on. There could 
> still be value in fixing devbind everyone knows and love to work on all 
> OS's without too much hassle :)

Yes, easier script is always better.

Another thought, I would like we think about integrating binding/unbinding
code inside EAL and bus drivers, and manage it via the PMDs.
There could be an option to bind on scan and unbind on rte_dev_remove.