[dpdk-dev] Application framework vs. library

> On Aug 1, 2016, at 5:04 AM, Thomas Monjalon > wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks for explaining your context. > Your concerns are known under the term "usability enhancements". > As they require some API changes, we won't make them in the release 16.11. > But we must work on it now to be able to anno

[dpdk-dev] Application framework vs. library

Hi, Thanks for explaining your context. Your concerns are known under the term "usability enhancements". As they require some API changes, we won't make them in the release 16.11. But we must work on it now to be able to announce the API changes for 17.02 before the 16.11 release. 2016-08-01 10:1

[dpdk-dev] Application framework vs. library

diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c index bd770cf..f63f2f8 100644 --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c @@ -664,12 +664,6 @@ eal_check_mem_on_local_socket(void) "memory on local socket!

[dpdk-dev] Application framework vs. library

>From c3be5420d921325559de9b1079354e1c4314220a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Steffen Bauch Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:13:02 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] allow the call to rte_openlog_stream() before rte_eal_init() - only initialize the default_log_stream if it was not initialized before main initial

[dpdk-dev] Application framework vs. library

Hi, as a developer of a product that uses DPDK I inherited a custom changeset towards DPDK 2.0 to allow better integration into our application stack. I am currently underway of updating the used DPDK release and would like to get rid of these local changes in the future by influencing the upstrea