On 10/11/2017 3:33 PM, jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com (Jerin Jacob) wrote: > -----Original Message----- >> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 15:02:51 +0200 >> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net> >> To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com> >> Cc: dev at dpdk.org, bruce.richardson at intel.com >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: change init macro as exec environment >> specific >> >> 07/08/2017 14:04, Jerin Jacob: >>> baremetal execution environments may have a different >>> method to enable RTE_INIT instead of using compiler >>> constructor scheme. Move RTE_INIT* definition under >>> exec-env to support different execution environments. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com> >>> --- >>> app/test-eventdev/evt_test.h | 2 +- >>> lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/Makefile | 2 +- >>> .../bsdapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_eal.h | 51 >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_log.c | 2 + >>> lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h | 2 + >>> lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal.h | 6 --- >>> lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_tailq.h | 2 + >>> lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/Makefile | 2 +- >>> .../linuxapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_eal.h | 51 >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 9 files changed, 111 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_eal.h >>> create mode 100644 lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_eal.h >> >> I am not a big fan of duplicating code for Linux and BSD. >> >> Maybe we should have different splits and include a common file >> in Linux and BSD? > > OK. This is doable. > >> >> I feel it would be easier to think about the split when adding >> a new environment. >> It is also an open question whether we want to support (again) some >> bare metal environments. > > IMO, A factor could be, how much we are OK to change? > > Our internal prototype implementation for a bare metal environment > shows things are already in place and may need minor changes like this to > accommodate a bare metal execution environment(accounting the latest > changes of moving pci to driver/pci/..) > > If no one care about need for such abstraction then we could drop this > patch. We can always keep local copy of such patches in our internal > tree. I thought to upstream it as it may be useful for someone else and > it is easy for us maintain if changes are in > lib/librte_eal/<new environment>/eal/ and drivers/*/ Hi Jerin, Thomas,
This is an old patch, the abstraction seems good idea but it comes with a duplication. Is there an intention to continue the work? Are we waiting for any decision? Any objection to mark it as rejected? Thanks, ferruh
