On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 04:19:26PM -0400, Aaron Conole wrote:
> In many cases, it's enough to simply let the application know that the
> call to initialize DPDK has failed. A complete halt can then be
> decided by the application based on error returned (and the app could
> even attempt a possible re-attempt after some corrective action by the
> user or application).
>
> Changes ->v2:
> - Audited all "RTE_LOG (" calls that were introduced, and converted
> to "RTE_LOG("
> - Added some fprintf(stderr, "") lines to indicate errors before logging
> is initialized
> - Removed assignments to errno.
> - Changed patch 14/25 to reflect EFAULT, and document in 25/25
>
> Changes ->v3:
> - Checkpatch issues in patches 3 (spelling mistake), 9 (issue with leading
> spaces), and 19 (braces around single line statement if-condition)
>
> Changes ->v4:
> - Error text cleanup.
> - Add a new check around rte_bus_scan(), added during the development of
> this series.
>
> Changes ->v5:
> - checkpatch.pl cleanup in patch 02/26
> - move rte_errno.h include from patch 15 to patch 02
> - remove stdbool.h and use int as return type in patch 06/26
>
> Changes ->v6:
> - convert all of the initialization calls to RTE_LOG() to rte_eal_init_alert()
> - run through check-git-log and checkpatches
> - add Bruce's ack to the series
>
> Changes ->v7:
> - Squash a bunch of commits
> - Make the corresponding BSD side changes
> - refactor the PCI probe failure code to be more explicit in the intent
> - Remove most of Bruce's acks (with all the shuffling/changes I think the
> series should be re-evaluated)
>
Ran a sanity test compiling with clang on FreeBSD 11 and had a quick
scan of the patches. All looks reasonably ok to me. Did not test on
linux.
Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
