On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 5:20 PM Tyler Retzlaff <roret...@linux.microsoft.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 05:14:55PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 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. > > > > Thomas, David with this just a final confirmation no need for a v6? > you're tweaking the series as is for final comments?
No need for a v6, the code move is trivial, and for the rest, I'm finished. I'll restart the per patch build all over again to be sure, and then merge the series probably tonight (CET+2). -- David Marchand
