07/03/2022 17:07, Michael Baum: > On 3/3/2022 2:57 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > > > This is too much mlx5 specific addition, and I don't think it is good to > > extend > > testpmd with PMD specific code. > > If we enable it, sure there will be other vendors willing to do the same, > > making testpmd even messier. > > Hi Ferruh, > > It is mlx5 PMD specific API, which enables to import device from remote > process. > This extension is the way to test this API, you can see a lot of PMD specific > APIs along testpmd files. > > If one day, other vendors want to import devargs from remote process, they > will remove the mlx5 build time dependency and use it. > > > I don't know what those ``cmd_fd`` and ``pd_handle`` (that read from > > provided socket), but can they be read from some other script and feed to > > testpmd, like a python wrapper etc...
I agree with Ferruh that it's a lot of code only for mlx5. Yes we are already calling other PMD-specific API in testpmd but we should try to keep it as small as possible. I propose to try a rework to make it easier to digest. As a consequence, we won't have this testpmd feature in 22.03, and we can work together for the next release.
