Hi David, Tetsuya, I have sent V3 (changes isolated to rte_ether component) for formal review. Please look into it and let me know your inputs.
@David: I looked at "rte_eth_dev_get_port_by_name()", this function is similar to "rte_eth_dev_get_name_by_port" and I have used same logic. Let me know if this not correct I can fix both. Thanks, Ravi On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Ravi Kerur <rkerur at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi David, > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 7:04 AM, David Marchand <david.marchand at 6wind.com> > wrote: > >> Hello Ravi, Tetsuya, >> >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Ravi Kerur <rkerur at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Let us know how you want us to fix this? To fix rte_eal_vdev_init and >>> rte_eal_pci_probe_one to return allocated port_id we had 2 approaches >>> mentioned in earlier discussion. In addition to those we have another >>> approach with changes isolated only to rte_ether component. I am attaching >>> diffs (preliminary) with this email. Please let us know your inputs since >>> it involves EAL component. >>> >> >> - This patch looks like a good ethdev cleanup (even if it really lacks >> some context / commit log). >> >> I wonder just why you only take the first part of the name in >> rte_eth_dev_get_port_by_name(). >> Would not this match, let's say, both toto and toto0 vdevs ? >> Is this intended ? >> >> It was not intended, i will look into it. > >> >> - In the end, with this patch, do we still need to update eal ? >> Looking at the code, I am not sure anymore. >> > > Approach 3 (preliminary diffs sent as an attachment) doesn't involve EAL > but the other two solutions do. So please let us know which one you prefer. > I will send updated patch. > > Thanks, > Ravi > > >> >> >> >> -- >> David Marchand >> > >
