On 2015/09/24 6:22, Ravi Kerur wrote: > 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.
Hi Ravi, I've checked the patch. I guess your patch is good. > > @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. Do you comment about rte_eth_dev_get_port_by_name and rte_eth_dev_get_port_by_addr? If so, I guess we don't need to merge. > 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 >>> >>
