From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] introduce telemetry library Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 19:07:11 +0200 Message-ID: <2973050.L86uqIDBg1@xps> References: <1535026093-101872-1-git-send-email-ciara.power@intel.com> <2030383.RfJjvT9l4E@xps> <20181009145601.GA11684@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: "Van Haaren, Harry" , "Laatz, Kevin" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "stephen@networkplumber.org" , "gaetan.rivet@6wind.com" , "shreyansh.jain@nxp.com" To: Bruce Richardson Return-path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1CA11B5F5 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 19:07:15 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20181009145601.GA11684@bricha3-MOBL.ger.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" 09/10/2018 16:56, Bruce Richardson: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 01:41:10PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > I think it is not clean. > > We should really split EAL in two parts: > > - low level routines > > - high level init. > > > > About telemetry, you can find any workaround, but it must be temporary. > > > > In fairness, though, splitting up EAL is a fairly significant piece of work > to just throw out there as a suggestion to people! Have you investigated > what it would take for that, or looked at the implications of it? It's > probably not something that one can just sit and do in the spur of the > moment. For sure, it is a massive work. That's why I agree to have a workaround in the meantime. I did not check the implications in details. The issue with such clean-up of DPDK design is to find someone willing to work on it.