On 2015/02/19 22:29, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote:
> On 2015/02/19 20:17, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> @@ -152,6 +159,7 @@ struct rte_pci_device {
>>> uint16_t max_vfs; /**< sriov enable if not zero */
>>> int numa_node; /**< NUMA node connection */
>>> struct rte_devargs *devargs; /**< Device user arguments */
>>> + enum rte_pt_driver pt_driver; /**< Driver of passthrough */
>> [...]
>>> +static int
>>> +pci_get_kernel_driver_by_path(const char *filename, char *dri_name)
>> I think "kernel driver" is a good name. Why not using this name in the
>> pci_device struct to be more consistent?
> Hi Michael,
>
> Could you please let me know what do you think about it?
Hi Thomas,
Could you please check below reply from Michael?
He has already replied it.
http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/3363/
According to Tim's email, he might be out of office until middle of next
week.
I cannot rewrite his patch without his agreement. So I will submit
patches without this.
If we decide to change it when he comes back, I will send v11 patches.
Thanks,
Tetsuya
> Thanks
> Tetsuya
>
>> Thanks
