Huawei, Thomas, Please find an updated patchset in the appropriate mail thread.
With best regards, Pavel On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Xie, Huawei <huawei.xie at intel.com> wrote: > 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 > >
