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

[Jerin Jacob]

-----Original Message-----
> Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 13:01:47 +0000
> From: "Van Haaren, Harry" <harry.van.haaren at intel.com>
> To: Jerin Jacob <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>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/5] event/sw: change worker rings to
>  standard	event rings
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Can be squashed then, please and thanks!
> 
> Then this patch itself (5/5) is
> 
> Acked-by: Harry van Haaren <harry.van.haaren at intel.com>


Applied this series to dpdk-next-eventdev/master after squashing
http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/26241/

Thanks