From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21C865A84 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:14:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B6BF461E2; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:14:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp195.koti.laiskiainen.org (vpn1-6-41.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.6.41]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t9GDEC4T016824; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:14:13 -0400 To: Bruce Richardson References: <42ab5ad11b473b964faaa2b0c622b92085d2545a.1444996480.git.pmatilai@redhat.com> <20151016125953.GC9980@bricha3-MOBL3> From: Panu Matilainen Message-ID: <5620F824.4000707@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 16:14:12 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151016125953.GC9980@bricha3-MOBL3> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.27 Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/5] eal: add an error code to plugin init for the next step 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: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:14:15 -0000 On 10/16/2015 03:59 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 02:58:16PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Panu Matilainen >> --- >> lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/eal.c | 3 ++- >> lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c | 3 ++- >> lib/librte_eal/common/eal_options.h | 2 +- >> lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal.c | 3 ++- >> 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > Again, another minor nit, but couldn't this be done when refactoring in previous > patches, rather than needed a whole separate commit ? Of course it'd be possible to do this earlier, I pondered about it too but then went with this because a) otherwise I would've had to rework the earlier patches again b) not knowing which way people prefer it, I might've had to rework it back to the original c) didn't know we were saving commits d) doing it like this maintains a certain symmetry to how stuff is introduced ... yes, its all rather academic :) - Panu -