On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:46:54PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 04/10/2018 11:44, Gaëtan Rivet:
> > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:10:46AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_dev.c
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_dev.c
> > > @@ -129,46 +129,61 @@ i
04/10/2018 11:44, Gaëtan Rivet:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:10:46AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_dev.c
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_dev.c
> > @@ -129,46 +129,61 @@ int rte_eal_dev_detach(struct rte_device *dev)
> >
> > int
> > rte_eal_h
I much prefer this API,
I have one remark inline however.
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:10:46AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> All information about a device to probe can be grouped
> in a common string, which is what we usually call devargs.
> An application should not have to parse this string be
All information about a device to probe can be grouped
in a common string, which is what we usually call devargs.
An application should not have to parse this string before
calling the EAL probe function.
And the syntax could evolve to be more complex and support
matching multiple devices in one st
4 matches
Mail list logo