From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Pavel Boldin <pboldin@mirantis.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] vhost: using EVENTFD_COPY2
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 20:35:29 +0200
Message-ID: <CACf4_B9RHxV6QWKrM35+wA1gVaGx9V_TDzL9cVHHbKmDPjs9hA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1429184910-30186-2-git-send-email-pboldin@mirantis.com>
 <1440787880-7079-3-git-send-email-pboldin@mirantis.com>
 <C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B4B12F6BE@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <CACf4_B_c6Pfp6pYO8EeC1Q3b5Ww6thhV8Xp0wPjwJYYbQ=2ccg@mail.gmail.com>
 <C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B4B141767@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: "Xie, Huawei" <huawei.xie@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com
 [209.85.212.177]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F25628D9E
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:35:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: by wikq8 with SMTP id q8so263896564wik.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B4B141767@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
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>

Huawei, Thomas,

Please find an updated patchset in the appropriate mail thread.

With best regards,
Pavel

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Xie, Huawei <huawei.xie@intel.com> wrote:

> On 10/21/2015 8:16 PM, Pavel Boldin wrote:
> > Xie,
> >
> > Please find my comments intermixed below.
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Xie, Huawei <huawei.xie@intel.com
> > <mailto:huawei.xie@intel.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Thanks Pavel for this work.
> >     This is what we think is the better implementation for eventfd
> >     proxy, in
> >     our last review.
> >     Could you add an additional patch to remove the old implementation?
> >
> > I'm not really sure if we should do it -- imagine upgrading from one
> > version of DPDK to another.
> > Given the current implementation there is a backward compatibility.
> I couldn't image the case any one would run old dpdk app with the new
> dpdk module. However I am ok you leave it here, :), we could remove this
> in next release.
> Could you finish rebasing the patch before end of next week, otherwise
> it will lose chance of being merged.
> >
> >
> >
> >     Again, please run checkpatch.pl <http://checkpatch.pl> against
> >     your patch.
> >
> > Oops. Thanks for pointing out.
> >
> >
> >     On 8/29/2015 2:51 AM, Pavel Boldin wrote:
> >
> >     [...]
> >     > +
> >     > +int
> >     > +eventfd_init(void)
> >     > +{
> >     > +     if (eventfd_link > 0)
> >     0 could be valid fd. Change it to:
> >
> > Got it. Thanks.
> >
> >
> >         if (eventfd_link >= 0)
> >     Change elsewhere if i miss it.
> >     > +int
> >     > +eventfd_free(void)
> >     > +{
> >     > +     if (eventfd_link > 0)
> >     same as above:
> >         if (eventfd_link >= 0)
> >
> >     [...]
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sincerely,
> >  Pavel
>
>