Hi Tetsuya,
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Tetsuya Mukawa <mukawa at igel.co.jp> wrote: > 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. > > I just mentioned that new functions are using same logic as existing function. Thanks, Ravi > > 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 > >>> > >> > >
