From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f47.google.com (mail-lf0-f47.google.com [209.85.215.47]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77EC22946 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2016 15:01:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-lf0-f47.google.com with SMTP id b75so15291121lfg.3 for ; Thu, 06 Oct 2016 06:01:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kpe5kus6kk2RviQQOH9dNTJAxNzgTHqUcdgcZuDqG6Q=; b=K90nIpmvskcyw17aAicn28On8qzYRIyKloOxFFASyNEXE/Iy74q7ivcUsHFRYTZuyx KGxG4BHawJL6fpUFKYpu6iHj0Y56e7rtuKsSZaZGH2OD4cjxwEHt/zFEfpvP2YR583G5 f10wFMazIJsx8akInCv0OR6OHlz8mgCTOdY/wVBX+l12Du69VydWj8ikkTyFerlonxrO wIWHBrusqCGecebIg4q/wgeoSSwyAfB2+dCG9sBhSKYC152+IAPHUtG5XIYYXQhZ4jxa +q3uwx0LvaTV1qw8lAu9EmqzqNNz0BdPXCyuMfH4/4zKm38xQSyFzKGp7eVSjZ1MZBbv E2Ow== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kpe5kus6kk2RviQQOH9dNTJAxNzgTHqUcdgcZuDqG6Q=; b=knTKANocXGj5Uu3LSWylZVoUhBuuyIU8osdgpaQgRGL2kOTqh9D8kMyC9Ml2YTSlhx hcjAn69ykT9glC0HL1gjar+ac9bDLHRFj3yr1aqPqrDsL1AxDbxYq/1MFeS3XiCvzXuG U9FiX6c0uKwn80bOtpY8HgxaM+2HYrSY0nFXQL84j4eZac3iXirMn7hvRhA+uHkk6HM2 VrT67pGOeMqQAd1tJhn7Wg4RrYCnN9/pMMufhDPDtr0lnvBTlhAPze5FEPAdE9jWtkA4 P1GiszHRdBHKTBbWeY0YJm7XrF/CYrv7NbdlKYr5mc+HQfDvb1EN6pk3HtkMFhtGKfkM f+kw== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RkDBMt9ab6BuYwfeWbJPzoTlnMfGzpMSxPfbyP8N36JHMvSmLOfAbPYFTafeH83ibRL X-Received: by 10.194.85.225 with SMTP id k1mr14074236wjz.136.1475758876092; Thu, 06 Oct 2016 06:01:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (232.204.154.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.154.204.232]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w138sm37397865wmd.1.2016.10.06.06.01.14 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Oct 2016 06:01:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Shreyansh Jain Cc: David Marchand , dev@dpdk.org, Jan Viktorin Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2016 15:01:01 +0200 Message-ID: <4513848.pSoRsC1Uqd@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <1c349216-6ca6-5f40-d646-2ba59412d184@nxp.com> References: <1472704915-13112-1-git-send-email-shreyansh.jain@nxp.com> <295101088.MT2WGLcZeq@xps13> <1c349216-6ca6-5f40-d646-2ba59412d184@nxp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1 0/4] Generalize PCI specific EAL function/structures X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2016 13:01:16 -0000 2016-10-06 17:13, Shreyansh Jain: > Hi Thomas, > > On Monday 03 October 2016 07:06 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2016-10-03 11:07, Shreyansh Jain: > >> Hi David, > >> > >> On Friday 30 September 2016 09:01 PM, David Marchand wrote: > >>> Those patches move linux specifics (binding pci devices using sysfs) > >>> to common infrastucture. > >>> We have no proper hotplug support on bsd, but if we had some common > >>> code we should at least try to make the apis generic. > >>> > >> > >> I am not sure if I understood your point well. Just to confirm - you are > >> stating that the movement done in the patches might not suit BSD. > >> Probably you are talking about (Patch 3/4 and 4/4). > >> Is my understanding correct? > >> > >> So, movement to just Linux area is not enough? > >> I am not well versed with BSD way of doing something similar so if > >> someone can point it out, I can integrate that. (I will investigate it > >> at my end as well). > >> > >> This patchset makes the PCI->EAL movement *only* for Linux for sysfs > >> bind/unbind. (I should add this to cover letter, at the least). > > > > The concern is about function declarations in > > lib/librte_eal/common/eal_private.h > > We cannot be sure it can be applicable to something else than Linux. > > As it is implemented in Linux only, it should not be in a common header. > > > > Ok. But, digging a little I found at least one more similar case. > 'rte_eal_check_module()' which is present in the linuxapp/eal.c and has > existence in common, but no parallel implementation for BSD exists. This > function is accessing /sys/modules - which might be Linux specific. Yes the BSD implementation is missing. But the common function prototype makes sense as it can be called by an application and could be implemented for BSD.