From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/19] ethdev: support attach private
	device as first
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 13:34:50 +0100
Message-ID: <55aa02dd-ce7b-4879-83a3-b6c2d10ee4b3@intel.com>
References: <20180607123849.14439-1-qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
 <20180628015247.42232-1-qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
 <20180628015247.42232-7-qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
 <262dfd01-f580-f313-25d1-467448b7fbc1@intel.com>
 <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E7061153240F65@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <ebf3ccf1-4cf2-0af6-de9a-eacb6f769df0@intel.com>
 <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E706115324109C@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
 "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Richardson, Bruce"
 <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, "Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
 "Shelton, Benjamin H" <benjamin.h.shelton@intel.com>,
 "Vangati, Narender" <narender.vangati@intel.com>
To: "Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>,
 "thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549A22AA0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 28 Jun 2018 14:34:55 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <039ED4275CED7440929022BC67E706115324109C@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 28-Jun-18 12:45 PM, Zhang, Qi Z wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Zhang, Qi Z
>> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 7:27 PM
>> To: Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>; thomas@monjalon.net
>> Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
>> Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh
>> <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; Shelton, Benjamin H
>> <benjamin.h.shelton@intel.com>; Vangati, Narender
>> <narender.vangati@intel.com>
>> Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 06/19] ethdev: support attach private device as first
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Burakov, Anatoly
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 5:41 PM
>>> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; thomas@monjalon.net
>>> Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
>>> Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh
>>> <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; Shelton, Benjamin H
>>> <benjamin.h.shelton@intel.com>; Vangati, Narender
>>> <narender.vangati@intel.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/19] ethdev: support attach private device as
>>> first
>>>
>>> On 28-Jun-18 10:29 AM, Zhang, Qi Z wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Burakov, Anatoly
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 5:25 PM
>>>>> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; thomas@monjalon.net
>>>>> Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>;
>>>>> dev@dpdk.org; Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>;
>>>>> Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; Shelton, Benjamin H
>>>>> <benjamin.h.shelton@intel.com>; Vangati, Narender
>>>>> <narender.vangati@intel.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/19] ethdev: support attach private device
>>>>> as first
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28-Jun-18 2:52 AM, Qi Zhang wrote:
>>>>>> When attach a private device from secondary as the first one, we
>>>>>> need to make sure rte_eth_dev_shared_data is initialized, the
>>>>>> patch add necessary IPC for secondary to inform primary to do
>> initialization.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this mean hotplug is broken before this patch? Can it be moved
>>> earlier?
>>>>
>>>> Basically patch 4,5,6 depends on patch 3, they have no dependency
>>>> each
>>> other.
>>>
>>> So... is that a yes? :)
>>
>> Yes, 3 ,6,4, 5 is better, will re-order
> 
> Apologies, actually patch 6 depends on patch 5, which build the secondary to primary request channel, so current sequence is necessary.

OK, we can leave it as is then.

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly