From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jerin Jacob Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] event/sw: change worker rings to standard event rings Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 18:14:41 +0530 Message-ID: <20170703124439.GA9022@jerin> References: <20170607133620.275801-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <20170630150621.156365-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <20170630150621.156365-6-bruce.richardson@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "olivier.matz@6wind.com" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "dev@dpdk.org" To: "Van Haaren, Harry" Return-path: Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2nam02on0070.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.38.70]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF9C02E83 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2017 14:45:00 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" -----Original Message----- > Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:28:32 +0000 > From: "Van Haaren, Harry" > To: "jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com" > CC: "olivier.matz@6wind.com" , "Richardson, Bruce" > , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Richardson, > Bruce" > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/5] event/sw: change worker rings to > standard event rings > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson > > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 4:06 PM > > To: dev@dpdk.org > > Cc: olivier.matz@6wind.com; jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com; Richardson, Bruce > > > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/5] event/sw: change worker rings to standard event rings > > > > Now that we have a standard event ring implementation for passing events > > core-to-core, use that in place of the custom event rings in the software > > eventdev. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson > > Agree with 99% of this patch, but due to the implementation (with memzone lookup), > we need to change one part of the sw_port_setup() function. > > The change is required to allow port_setup() to be called multiple times on the same > port, which is required to re-configure a port that has already been configured once. > > I can send a separate fix, or I could re-spin Bruce's 5 patches, and include the fix. > > Given this is a small, non-datapath modification to the SW PMD, my preference is to > ack this patch once I've posted a separate patch fix for the SW PMD. > > @Jerin, any preference? I think, you can send it as a separate patch. I can squash the fix patch with this patch or apply it as separate one if you are not concerned about breaking when we do "git bisect". Let me know.