From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/11 1/2] vdev: new registration API Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 16:39:52 +0200 Message-ID: <7598226.ZWVFbVDckq@xps13> References: <1460632.jOzC6OEr8u@xps13> <4737854.PZKb5HIIVb@xps13> <20140414141030.GB27324@tuxdriver.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: "John W. Linville" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140414141030.GB27324-2XuSBdqkA4R54TAoqtyWWQ@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" Neil, John, I think we all want the same thing: simple and generic APIs. 2014-04-14 10:10, John W. Linville: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 03:45:31PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > From the user's point of view, it must be possible to create some virtual > > devices instead of using real ones. That's --vdev option. Then the device > > is handled as any other one thanks to its PMD. > > Except that it isn't, or at least it wasn't -- hence my patch to make > rte_pmd_init_all initialize _all_ PMDs rather than just the hardware > ones. I hope that will be remedied once all the dust settles with > the patchsets currently in flight. Yes there should not be any difference between PMDs for registering them. And rte_pmd_init_all is not needed. Please provide a patch to register all of them with constructors. -- Thomas