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