[dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] remove pci driver from vdevs

[Wiles, Keith]

On 8/28/15, 5:32 AM, "dev on behalf of Neil Horman" <dev-bounces at dpdk.org
on behalf of nhorman at tuxdriver.com> wrote:

>On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 08:15:47AM +0000, Iremonger, Bernard wrote:
>> Hi John,
>> 
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: John W. Linville [mailto:linville at tuxdriver.com]
>> > Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 6:44 PM
>> > To: Iremonger, Bernard
>> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org
>> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/6] remove pci driver from vdevs
>> > 
>> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 04:40:35PM +0100, Bernard Iremonger wrote:
>> > > There is a dummy pci driver in the vdev PMD's at present.
>> > > This RFC proposes to remove the pci driver from the vdev PMD's.
>> > > Changes have been made to librte_ether to handle vdevs which do not
>> > have a pci driver.
>> > >
>> > > The pdev PMD's should work as before with the changes to
>>librte_ether
>> > > The vdev PMD's which still have a pci driver should work as before
>>with the
>> > librte_ether changes.
>> > >
>> > > The following vdev PMD's have had the  pci driver removed
>> > >
>> > > bonding PMD
>> > > null PMD
>> > > pcap PMD
>> > > ring PMD
>> > 
>> > Any reason there is no patch for the af_packet driver?
>> > 
>> > John
>> 
>> I have just modified the Intel vdev PMD's.
>> It would be best if the owners of the non Intel vdev's submitted
>>patches for their drivers.
>> 
>I disagree.  Its ok given that this is an RFC patch I suppose, but if you
>intend
>to actually propose this change for review, you need to modify all
>affected
>drivers in a single commit.  Asking individual driver maintainers to
>submit
>patches to not access a struct element that is removed in a separate
>patch will
>by definition cause FTBFS errors.  All references to the structure member
>being
>removed must also be eliminated in the same or a prior commit, preferably
>the
>former.

+1, if you introduce a chance that effects other places in the
code/drivers then you must also make the changes to those parts as well.
It really should not be an option IMO.
>
>Neil
>
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Bernard. 
>> 
>> <snip> 
>> 
>> 
>


‹ 
Regards,
++Keith
Intel Corporation