From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 099AA68CB
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  8 Oct 2014 12:46:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from cpe-098-026-066-094.nc.res.rr.com ([98.26.66.94] helo=localhost)
 by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.63)
 (envelope-from <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>)
 id 1XbosW-0003vH-R8; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 06:54:02 -0400
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 06:53:55 -0400
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
To: David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>
Message-ID: <20141008105355.GA5045@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
References: <1412757811-10625-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@6wind.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1412757811-10625-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@6wind.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--)
X-Spam-Status: No
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal/bsd: fix core detection
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 10:46:48 -0000

On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 10:43:31AM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> Following "options parsing" patchset (commit d7cb626f and 489a9d6c), core
> detection is not working correctly on bsd.
> 
> ./x86_64-native-bsdapp-gcc/app/test -c f -n 4 -- -i
> [...]
> EAL: lcore 0 unavailable
> EAL: invalid coremask
> 
> Align bsd to linux:
> - commit f563a372 "eal: fix recording of detected/enabled logical cores"
> - commit 4f04db8b "eal: check coremask against detected lcores"
> 
> Reported-by: Zhan, Zhaochen <zhaochen.zhan@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>

Acked-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>

Though, that said, why are these files diverged in the first place?  At least as
far as eal_lcore.c and eal.c are concerned the only differences appear to be
cases of one file being updated and not the other.  It seems that, rather than
doing a patch like this to bring bsd up to date with linux, we should just
de-dup the files, put them in a common location and handle any real behavioral
differences with macros/ifdefs.  Is there a reason for separating them?

Neil