On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 02:08:56PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2014-04-18 08:04, Neil Horman: > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 04:42:01AM -0700, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 2014-04-15 14:05, Neil Horman: > > > > Rather than have each driver have to remember to add a constructor to it > > > > to > > > > make sure its gets registered properly, wrap that process up in a macro > > > > to > > > > make registration a one line affair. This also sets the stage for us to > > > > make registration of vdev pmds and physical pmds a uniform process > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <nhorman at tuxdriver.com> > > > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_pmd.h > > > > > > So you are creating a new header file for PMD API, right? > > > > > > According to rte_ethdev.h, > > > "The Ethernet Device API is composed of two parts:" > > > "- The application-oriented Ethernet API" > > > "- The driver-oriented Ethernet API" > > > > > > So we should implement this macro in rte_ethdev.h. > > > But maybe you prefer to split this file in two files. If so, please send a > > > separated patch for that. > > > > Actually I'm fine with moving the macro to another file, though if I do, I > > think merging it into rte_dev.h is more appropriate, as thats where the > > driver registration function lives. > > I'm not sure to understand what you're saying. > My suggestion is to have 2 files in lib/librte_ether: 1 for application API > and 1 for PMD API. > I'm suggesting not having 2 files at all, and merging rte_pmd.h into into rte_dev.h, which is where all the rest of the device registration code lives already. Does that make sense? Neil
> -- > Thomas >
