From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31ED65A08 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:24:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Mar 2015 16:19:03 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,391,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="466566225" Received: from irsmsx104.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.159]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Mar 2015 16:17:46 -0700 Received: from irsmsx103.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.247]) by IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.145]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 23:24:38 +0000 From: "Mcnamara, John" To: Neil Horman Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX callback Thread-Index: AQHQXOU9mNo7RPE6bEmXAywVhJMgMJ0ZOBAAgABAEuA= Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 23:24:37 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1426179268-22164-1-git-send-email-john.mcnamara@intel.com> <20150312191540.GB15260@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> In-Reply-To: <20150312191540.GB15260@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX callback 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: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 23:24:41 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman@tuxdriver.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 7:16 PM > To: Mcnamara, John > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: additional parameter in RX > callback >=20 >=20 > Well, we're well past the new feature phase of this cycle, so I would say > NACK. Hi Neil, This is more of a bug fix than a feature request. In retrospect it was a mistake not to have the same function declaration in= the callbacks as in the rte_eth_XX_burst functions since it was likely tha= t the callbacks would need access to the same information. This patch is trying to fix that error before it is set in stone. John