From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ga=EBtan?= Rivet Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] eal: add uevent monitor for hot plug Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 13:42:04 +0100 Message-ID: <20180109124204.xltndt76khsrgmpe@bidouze.vm.6wind.com> References: <1509567405-27439-3-git-send-email-jia.guo@intel.com> <2803089.mJXnisXhBj@xps> <01BA8470C017D6468C8290E4B9C5E1E83B2D13F4@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <3539603.0DoXzmkF5E@xps> <01BA8470C017D6468C8290E4B9C5E1E83B2D1493@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Thomas Monjalon , Mordechay Haimovsky , "dev@dpdk.org" , "stephen@networkplumber.org" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "Yigit, Ferruh" , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "shreyansh.jain@nxp.com" , "Wu, Jingjing" , "Zhang, Helin" , "Van Haaren, Harry" To: "Guo, Jia" Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f170.google.com (mail-wr0-f170.google.com [209.85.128.170]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 356CB2904 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 13:42:17 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wr0-f170.google.com with SMTP id w107so13965374wrb.9 for ; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 04:42:17 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01BA8470C017D6468C8290E4B9C5E1E83B2D1493@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi Jeff, On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 12:08:52PM +0000, Guo, Jia wrote: > Your comments about split it totally make sense ,no doubt that, but my question is that if split api with the funcational , so the function part should be set null implement or stake. Any other good idea or tip for that. > Please avoid top-posting on the mailing list, it is confusing when reading a thread intertwined with inner-posted mails. Regarding your issue, it is fine to propose a first skeleton API with bare implementations, then progressively use your new functions where relevant. It is only necessary to ensure compilation is always possible between each patch. The API itself need not be usable, as long as the patch order remains coherent and meaningful for review. Otherwise, sorry about not doing a review earlier, I didn't think I knew enough about uevent to provide useful comments. However after a quick reading I may be able to provide a few remarks. I will wait for your split before doing so. > Best regards, > Jeff Guo > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 7:45 PM > To: Guo, Jia > Cc: Mordechay Haimovsky ; dev@dpdk.org; stephen@networkplumber.org; Richardson, Bruce ; Yigit, Ferruh ; gaetan.rivet@6wind.com; Ananyev, Konstantin ; shreyansh.jain@nxp.com; Wu, Jingjing ; Zhang, Helin ; Van Haaren, Harry > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/2] eal: add uevent monitor for hot plug > > 09/01/2018 12:39, Guo, Jia: > > So, how can separate the patch into more small patch, use stake or null implement in function. I think we should consider if it is a economic way now, if I could explain more detail in code for you all not very familiar the background? I have sent v8, please check, thanks all. > > The v8 is not split enough. > Please try to address all my comments. -- Gaëtan Rivet 6WIND