On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 13:51:48 +0000
Bruce Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 02:43:46PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 26/02/2026 17:50, Robin Jarry:
> > > David Marchand, Feb 26, 2026 at 17:20:
> > > > Some applications use port hotplug as their primary way for using DPDK
> > > > resources.
> > > > Having a systematic device probing is a problem when not all available
> > > > resources will be used by the application, as such applications won't
> > > > set
> > > > an explicit allow list at startup.
> > > >
> > > > This is the case for OVS on systems with multiple mlx5 devices:
> > > > one device can be used by the kernel while the other(s) are used by
> > > > DPDK.
> > > > In such a setup, the kernel used device may get reconfigured in
> > > > unexpected ways and trigger issues like the one described by Kevin
> > > > not so long ago in bugzilla 1873.
> > > >
> > > > Add an EAL option so that we can change the default behavior from
> > > > block-listing to allow-listing.
> > [...]
> > > > + const char * const argv29[] = {prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
> > > > eal_debug_logs,
> > > > + "--allow-explicitly" };
> > >
> > > I am not convinced by the option name. What do you think of:
> > >
> > > --no-autoprobe
> > >
> > > That would match the Linux sriov_drivers_autoprobe sysfs.
> >
> > The name --no-autoprobe is better indeed.
> >
> > The exact effect of this option is to disable initial probing
> > of devices on all buses (except vdev).
> > Another name could be --no-initial-probing
> >
> > I think we should add the opposite option as well
> > to allow changing the default mode later.
> > For such an option, --autoprobe looks better than --initial-probing.
> >
> > Other opinions?
> >
> >
> > [...]
> > > Depending on what option name we settle on, could you add a short flag
> > > too? E.g.:
> > >
> > > BOOL_ARG("--no-autoprobe", "-N", "Disable automatic probing of
> > > non-blocked devices", no_autoprobe)
> > >
> > > Or:
> > >
> > > BOOL_ARG("--no-autoprobe", "-P", "Disable automatic probing of
> > > non-blocked devices", no_autoprobe)
> >
> > I don't see the benefit of a short flag.
> > It makes reading commands less obvious.
> >
> I actually would prefer to have a short option available, and I'd really
> like that short option to be "-A" since it serves as the perfect addition
> to the "-a" flag to specify devices to probe.
>
> Based on that, I would look for long options which allow "-A" as the short
> version for example:
>
> --allowlisted-devs-only
>
> /Bruce
Also if -b or --block-list become a no op with --no-autoprobe. So it should be
a warning?
