On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 6:51 PM Juraj Linkeš [off-list ref] wrote:

<removed parts which I think are not that relevant>

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

The blocklist is, I think, agreed upon by everyone. The
question is whether we want to support the allowlist
alongside it and there seem to be enough reasons to do that.

Sorry, may be this is answered already, but, what additional
benefit does allowlist provide over the blocklist?

VPP could use it:
https://gerrit.fd.io/r/gitweb?p=vpp.git;a=blob;f=build/externa
l/pa
ckag es/dpdk
.mk;h=c35ac84c27b19411a0cfdf9a3524fdf36024762c;hb=HEAD

They're disabling almost everything so an allowlist would fit there.
And they won't need to update the list when a new driver is
added (which they won't need).

This is different from how we started this discussion. The
current discussion was for DPDK internal use. But the one you
are referencing above is for users of DPDK. I am fine for
providing the allow list for the users of DPDK. But for DPDK
internal, I think block list is

enough.

quoted

quoted

That's an interesting suggestion. Jerin, what do you think? Why
did you

want to have an allowlist? Would this work?

# The very reason why VPP chooses to have allow list so that they
can control what needs to include.
# Another use case is like, in SoCs have fixed internal devices, we
can have optimized build for that can have only allow list of the
drivers that care about # For server market, block list makes sense
# For embedded SoC, allow list makes sense.

For the embedded SoC, IMO, the upstream project could allow the compilation

for wider set of PMDs/libs. May be the end customer can use the allow list to
compile/use what is required?

Just to understand, how end customer can enable allow list, if DPDK build system
does not support it?
Also to understand, If we are supporting blocklist, why not have allowlist (I
mean, both of them) as both are required as it caters different use case as
mention above. We can not emulate allowlist with blocklist as each version of
DPDK will have new libraries and PMD's which end user has no clue. Right?

quoted

I think, that is the reason why VPP is doing the allow list.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but to clarify, VPP likely would be using the allowlist in this fashion, but that is not an arm specific usecase. I think what Honnappa wanted to see was how the allowlist could be used in an arm usecase (such as using it in an SoC configuration).

There is nothing arm-specific here. Right? allowlist will be common
and will be used by all architecture. Right?