From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] eal/arm: Enable lpm/table/pipeline libs
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 14:06:02 +0100
Message-ID: <20151202140602.6a98cc2c@pcviktorin.fit.vutbr.cz>
References: <1448995276-9599-1-git-send-email-jianbo.liu@linaro.org>
 <1448995276-9599-4-git-send-email-jianbo.liu@linaro.org>
 <20151201164139.GA12144@localhost.localdomain>
 <CAP4Qi3-5ofDU-2-4KsxFzMC1OpTsc5WjmxcFT2Eu_URA0UBzDw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151202080259.GA32494@localhost.localdomain>
 <CAP4Qi387Pru9wFY4RyNxepSjFhG+adyrk1JKyvoWSMV9yL259A@mail.gmail.com>
 <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836ACFADA@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <20151202104811.GA6337@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from wes1-so2.wedos.net (wes1-so2.wedos.net [46.28.106.16])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AF795913
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  2 Dec 2015 14:08:41 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <20151202104811.GA6337@localhost.localdomain>
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>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 16:18:13 +0530
Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com> wrote:

> > > [snip]
> > 
> > My preference would also be to put architecture dependent implementation
> > into different files. 
> > Might be create lib/librte_lpm/arch/(arm|x86)/... here?
> > Konstantin    
> 
> +1
> 
> my existing patch creates lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm_neon.h instead
> of lib/librte_lpm/arch/arm/rte_lpm_neon.h like
> lib/librte_hash/rte_cmp_x86.h
> 
> I am OK for changing the directory structure as proposed in my next revision
> of patch.
> Let me know if anyone has any objections/concerns.
> 
> Jerin

I don't like the idea to have arch/... directory structure inside
libraries. I would delay such decision until there are really a big
number of different optimized implementations.

However, the rte_lpm_neon.h approach is OK from my point of view.

Jan

> > [snip]