On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 1:14 PM Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.bura...@intel.com> wrote: > > On 24-Oct-19 8:37 AM, David Marchand wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 7:47 PM Burakov, Anatoly > > <anatoly.bura...@intel.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 23-Oct-19 11:42 AM, Li Han wrote: > >>> In rte_eal_config_reattach(),the secondary mmap may fail > >>> due to the rte_mem_cfg_addr already be used by others.do > >>> the change just as the rte_fbarray_init() do.if no > >>> base_virtaddr,use the default 0x100000000. > >>> > >>> v2/v3: > >>> -fix code style issues > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Li Han <han....@zte.com.cn> > >>> --- > >> > >> Nack. There's a reason why we map it at the same address, and it's to > >> have all pointers working across processes. Remapping it at a different > >> address has potential to break things. > > > > Marked as rejected. > > Thanks. > > > > Hi David, > > My apologies, I've misinterpreted the intent of the patch. I am > rescinding my NACK.
Ok, I will put it back in my queue. No conflict with the work on http://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=5854 ? There was a comment by Stephen, btw. -- David Marchand
