From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from wes1-so1.wedos.net (wes1-so1.wedos.net [46.28.106.15]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 186FE8D35 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:31:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz (pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz [147.229.13.147]) by wes1-so1.wedos.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3pfMXs4jMZz53d; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:31:57 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:29:55 +0100 From: Jan Viktorin To: David Marchand Message-ID: <20160111182955.3f845d4e@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz> In-Reply-To: References: <1451938106-12145-1-git-send-email-viktorin@rehivetech.com> Organization: RehiveTech MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 00/14] Step towards PCI independency 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: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:31:58 -0000 Hello David, did you find time to see the patchset? I am working on a PMD on top of these so I'd be glad to base on the code close to the (potentially) upstreamed one. Regards Jan On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 10:45:11 +0100 David Marchand wrote: > Hello Jan, > > I agree that ethdev / cryptodev should really have no idea of what device > type is underneath. > I was thinking of a slightly difference approach, but yours looks fine. > > I must find time to have a closer look at your patchset, asap. > >