[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/5] event/sw: change worker rings to standard event rings

[Jerin Jacob]

-----Original Message-----
> Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:28:32 +0000
> From: "Van Haaren, Harry" <harry.van.haaren at intel.com>
> To: "jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com" <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com>
> CC: "olivier.matz at 6wind.com" <olivier.matz at 6wind.com>, "Richardson, Bruce"
>  <bruce.richardson at intel.com>, "dev at dpdk.org" <dev at dpdk.org>, "Richardson,
>  Bruce" <bruce.richardson at intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/5] event/sw: change worker rings to
>  standard	event rings
> 
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson
> > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 4:06 PM
> > To: dev at dpdk.org
> > Cc: olivier.matz at 6wind.com; jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com; Richardson, Bruce
> > <bruce.richardson at intel.com>
> > 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 <bruce.richardson at intel.com>
> 
> 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.