06/10/2022 17:10, Tyler Retzlaff: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 03:36:12PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 05/10/2022 18:34, Tyler Retzlaff: > > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 09:11:26AM -0700, Tyler Retzlaff wrote: > > > > > Newly added code can go to eal_common_thread.c rather than introduce a > > > > > new common/rte_thread.c file (or is there a rationale for this?). > > > > > > > > i will make this change in the next revision. if anyone does object i > > > > hope they will do so quickly. > > > > > > looking at this more closely i'm going to back away from making the > > > adjustment here. if Thomas and/or Dmitry could comment it would be > > > appreciated. > > > > > > it appears that functions placed in eal_common_xxx files are consumed > > > internally by the eal where rte_xxx files are functions that are exposed > > > through public api. > > > > It is not so clear. > > There is already eal_common_thread.c which implements the same kind of > > functions, > > so I think you should move your new functions here. > > > > > since these additions are public api it seems they should remain in > > > rte_thread.c > > > > Let's not have 2 .c files for the same purpose in the same directory. > > just as another point there seem to be several other rte_xxx.c files > here can we clarify why they were not subject to the same requirement? > as a follow on does it mean that the code in those files should also be > moved to eal_common_xxx files?
That's just history. > please let me know if the justification is not the same i'll move the > functions to the eal_common file as requested. i just want to make sure > it is being done for the consistent/correct reason. Some file names are not correct, we could rename them. I think David is already doing the last minor changes on this series while merging, so no need to do anything on your side.
