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 107237F3D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  8 Oct 2014 21:10:11 +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 1XbwjW-0008PA-MI; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:17:27 -0400
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 15:17:10 -0400
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
To: David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>
Message-ID: <20141008191710.GD13306@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
References: <1412757811-10625-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@6wind.com>
 <20141008105355.GA5045@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
 <CALwxeUs7Ocszg=VxxfectL+JrxA7=_6_BGUspB9XMovSqViebQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALwxeUs7Ocszg=VxxfectL+JrxA7=_6_BGUspB9XMovSqViebQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--)
X-Spam-Status: No
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <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 19:10:11 -0000

On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 01:23:49PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> Hello Neil,
> 
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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?
> >
> 
> I agree that there should only be one file for those things (and a lot of
> other stuff like eal_debug, eal_log etc...).
> This is not that easy: I tried once and gave up because the resulting
> patchset was huge.
> Personally, I don't have time to dig into this.
> 
No one ever does, thats how messes like this happen :)

I've got a bsd guest installed, I'll see if I can clean it up.
Neil

> 
> -- 
> David Marchand