On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 1:16 PM Sunil Kumar Kori <sk...@marvell.com> wrote: > >Now, it seems you ignored what I replied without any explanation. > >So tell me, what was wrong with > >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_david- > >2Dmarchand_dpdk_commit_e7860231ecdce91f9f70027d4090a7057b8fd5f7& > >d=DwIFaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=dXeXaAMkP5COgn1zxHMyaF1_d > >9IIuq6vHQO6NrIPjaE&m=3nE0hIIwz2cXBpYrewLujeRWz5WPE7LB9j_HvOtBd68 > >&s=OjPCDnof_PNgATyzPIbjG8EtSYa5fE4EwbLD0oaIw5w&e= > No, Neither I have ignored your code changes nor denied. Both submitted > patches uses similar approaches having one difference only that is you > modified existing functions and I have written the new without touching the > existing one. I have already explained in v1 that why I have not taken that > path what you have implemented. > Also I thought, its not good to change pci_ignore_device and > pci_devargs_lookup because in future if more parameters (part of > rte_pci_device structure) are considered to ignore a device then again we > have to change this function to support it. > It may be a rare case but it was one thought process.
Your current patch is a no go anyway. The __rte_experimental tagging makes no sense. -- David Marchand
