On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 06:39:30PM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:13:42AM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 07:51:29PM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > As previously discussed in RFC v1 [1], RFC v2 [2], with changes > > > described in [3] (also pasted below), here is the first non-draft series > > > for this new API. > > > > > > [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-August/045181.html > > > [2] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-October/048592.html > > > [3] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-October/048196.html > > > > > > v2..v3: > > > > > > - This patch set is check-patch clean with an exception that > > > 03/06 has one WARNING:MACRO_WITH_FLOW_CONTROL > > > - Looking forward to getting additional maintainers for libeventdev > > > > > > TODO: > > > 1) Create user guide > > > > > > Jerin Jacob (6): > > > eventdev: introduce event driven programming model > > > eventdev: define southbound driver interface > > > eventdev: implement the northbound APIs > > > eventdev: implement PMD registration functions > > > event/skeleton: add skeleton eventdev driver > > > app/test: unit test case for eventdev APIs > > > > > Hi Jerin, > > Hi Bruce, > > > > > other than the couple of comments I've made in replies to the individual > > patches, this looks pretty good to me. Only additional comment I have is > > Thanks > > > that some of the macro names are a little long, and maybe we can shorten > > them For example, you've added "_FLAG_" into the config flag macros, > > and I'm not sure that is necessary. Similarly, I think we can drop > > "_DEV_" from the PRIORITY names to shorten them. > > OK. I will remove the explicit _FLAG_ to shorten macro name. > The _DEV_ in PRIORITY is not that long. So I would like to keep it for > consistency and to denote it across priorities in event dev. > > > > > Irrespective of these naming suggestions, once the other couple of > > comments are taken care of, I think this set is suitable for merging to > > the next-event tree. > > I will send v4 with fixes and your suggestions. If their is no further > comment on that, we will merge to next-event tree > I'm not sure a v4 is needed, unless you especially want to do one. Given the scope of the suggested changes I think you can just make those changes on apply to the next-event tree.
/Bruce
