> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > > Hmmm. It's true it is cleaner. But I am not sure having a generic API > > for bypass is a good idea at all. > > I was thinking to totally remove it. > > Why to remove it? > As I know there are people who use that functionality. > > > Maybe we can try to have a specific API by including ixgbe_bypass.h in > > the application. > > Hmm, isn't that what we were trying to get rid of in last few years? > HW specific stuff?
Yes exactly. I have the feeling the bypass API is specific to ixgbe. Isn't it? As we will probably see other features specific to only one device. Instead of adding a function in the generic API, I think it may be saner to include a driver header. Then if it appears to be used in more devices, it can be generalized. What do you think of this approach?