On 10/21/2015 8:16 PM, Pavel Boldin wrote:
> Xie,
>
> Please find my comments intermixed below.
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Xie, Huawei <huawei.xie at intel.com
> <mailto:huawei.xie at intel.com>> wrote:
>
> Thanks Pavel for this work.
> This is what we think is the better implementation for eventfd
> proxy, in
> our last review.
> Could you add an additional patch to remove the old implementation?
>
> I'm not really sure if we should do it -- imagine upgrading from one
> version of DPDK to another.
> Given the current implementation there is a backward compatibility.
I couldn't image the case any one would run old dpdk app with the new
dpdk module. However I am ok you leave it here, :), we could remove this
in next release.
Could you finish rebasing the patch before end of next week, otherwise
it will lose chance of being merged.
>
>
>
> Again, please run checkpatch.pl <http://checkpatch.pl> against
> your patch.
>
> Oops. Thanks for pointing out.
>
>
> On 8/29/2015 2:51 AM, Pavel Boldin wrote:
>
> [...]
> > +
> > +int
> > +eventfd_init(void)
> > +{
> > + if (eventfd_link > 0)
> 0 could be valid fd. Change it to:
>
> Got it. Thanks.
>
>
> if (eventfd_link >= 0)
> Change elsewhere if i miss it.
> > +int
> > +eventfd_free(void)
> > +{
> > + if (eventfd_link > 0)
> same as above:
> if (eventfd_link >= 0)
>
> [...]
>
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> Pavel
