From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f53.google.com (mail-oi0-f53.google.com [209.85.218.53]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A56D67E6A for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 13:16:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-oi0-f53.google.com with SMTP id v63so6935509oia.26 for ; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 04:23:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=N1+CQa4lvbrktXuc1gVNQrQZ9KIrEgygMURo0vPzJiU=; b=fRKM/g06B6CULdZQ61qZi8bM+WAH0U1enWhmuu6fqp9RrCmQ+HTYj501g8gZrzV6sZ hj57BpojpaCm2ymvL1M6iY6jKSntaPNs6Fz85rNQWPlsz9RGAgnq0KDuMlPFwQ7tAbOE QougxUGZ6mnn9VVpqUD33ND+VSDh9o8LJyK+51fW/wFrkkVXWa07pMeYhWHgDBP+QE5V MRQZSHW4kx6fEqTREfVzwOz66+HRma4iVQTu8vUQ3nB7a6uSvf+YgV64k/IrF4tOwEDD 4dPVCuIJChq2YHXeOU4tlEtQjTs40tXCuWw/TSLocadUyUjBJN8Zrsc5Iy0qOgpcIXTx 1OFg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkp7kQmO+407u0FIDybhI1DVA/nic4f2dlbmjhnuIintLLkZqlTpDL2em90urMIAE3u0lmM MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.40.234 with SMTP id a10mr11045926obl.8.1412767429943; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 04:23:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.57.139 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 04:23:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20141008105355.GA5045@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <1412757811-10625-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@6wind.com> <20141008105355.GA5045@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 13:23:49 +0200 Message-ID: From: David Marchand To: Neil Horman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: "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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 11:16:34 -0000 Hello Neil, On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Neil Horman 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. -- David Marchand