From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F36058F7
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 17:10:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29])
 by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Nov 2015 08:10:12 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,352,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="608157365"
Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.208.61])
 by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 27 Nov 2015 08:10:10 -0800
Received: by  (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:10:08 +0025
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:10:08 +0000
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Message-ID: <20151127161008.GA27472@bricha3-MOBL3>
References: <1442608390-12537-1-git-send-email-mario.alfredo.c.arevalo@intel.com>
 <560E6144.7020607@redhat.com>
 <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B03594B730@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <1952928.MdIcOR2i3D@xps13>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1952928.MdIcOR2i3D@xps13>
Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 6/8] mk: Add rule for installing nic bind
 files
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: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:10:13 -0000

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 04:52:11PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-10-02 10:54, Richardson, Bruce:
> > I think there are better utilities available for determining the core layout
> > that cpu_layout.py. "lstopo", for one, is much more powerful. Do we want/need
> > to keep our own script around for that?
> 
> Good question.
> Anyone against dropping cpu_layout.py?

At this late stage in the release, yes. In 2.3 or future release, none on my part.
:-)

/Bruce