25/05/2018 15:57, Bruce Richardson: > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 04:20:42PM +0300, Kevin Wilson wrote: > > Thanks, Thomas. > > > > Actually there is an EAL rte_eal_check_module() method which does this > > exactly: > > http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c#n1089 > > It is declared in eal_private.h. > > > > Is it reasonable to send a patch which moves the decalartion to eal.h > > instead so PMDs can use it in their probe() method ? > > > > Apart from it - So is there any practical effect for using the > > RTE_PMD_REGISTER_KMOD_DEP() ? or is it only a sort of declarative > > macro, saying that the PMD is dependent on the specified kernel > > modules ? In the past - did it really ever check for dependency and > > shouted back > > when the required modules specified in the RTE_PMD_REGISTER_KMOD_DEP() > > macro were not found ? > > > AFAIK this information is only used for reporting out when running pmdinfo > on a driver or statically linked binary. It was never enforced at runtime, > simply because the lack of particular ports was never an error. If a module > was not loaded, and NICs not bound to that module, it was always assumed > that the ports were never meant to be used by DPDK anyway.
Yes it is informational. But we can add a log to help with debug. It could even be an error if a port is whitelisted.
