Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) replied on github web page: platform/linux-generic/pktio/loopback.c line 107 @@ -271,9 +275,20 @@ const pktio_if_ops_t loopback_pktio_ops = { .mac_get = loopback_mac_addr_get, .link_status = loopback_link_status, .capability = loopback_capability, - .pktin_ts_res = NULL, - .pktin_ts_from_ns = NULL, .config = NULL, .input_queues_config = NULL, .output_queues_config = NULL, + .print = NULL, }; + +ODP_MODULE_CONSTRUCTOR(loopback_pktio_ops) +{ + odp_module_constructor(&loopback_pktio_ops); + + odp_subsystem_register_module(pktio_ops, &loopback_pktio_ops); +} + +/* Temporary variable to enable link this module, + * will remove in Makefile scheme changes. + */ +int enable_link_loopback_pktio_ops = 0;
Comment: As noted, "to dos" should be tracked as issues. These need not be separate issues, as the main purpose is simply to remind us that pktio still has work to do. > Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote: > Why are we changing this pktio name? This will cause existing applications > that use the "loop" interface to need to change, which seems unnecessary. I'd > keep this PR strictly to modularization without any application impact. If we > want to change the pktio name that should be a separate PR. >> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote: >> Please open an issue so that we don't forget about this "to do". We decided >> that this is a good use for GitHub issues. >>> He Yi(heyi-linaro) wrote: >>> Run out of 80 characters? >>>> He Yi(heyi-linaro) wrote: >>>> Run out of 80 characters? >>>>> He Yi(heyi-linaro) wrote: >>>>> Yes, I'm thinking how to achieve this. Can it be later patch improvements. >>>>>> He Yi(heyi-linaro) wrote: >>>>>> This is temporary variables to make sure these modules are linked into >>>>>> ODP library. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because the Makefiles have not been re-organized to build modules each >>>>>> as real independent module (.a or .so) and either link them with >>>>>> --whole-archive or --no-as-needed flags, this is necessary for current >>>>>> Makefiles. >>>>>>> He Yi(heyi-linaro) wrote: >>>>>>> Yes, here we only use the ODP_SUBSYSTEM_API() macro to typedef >>>>>>> prototype function pointers and leave the prototype declarations no >>>>>>> defines. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I suggest we accept this as is and consider how to handle this kind of >>>>>>> tasks more properly in terms of autogen. as described in >>>>>>> https://github.com/heyi-linaro/pure-interface/issues/6 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Josep Puigdemont(joseppc) wrote: >>>>>>>> declaration fins in one line (there are others in this file too) >>>>>>>>> Josep Puigdemont(joseppc) wrote: >>>>>>>>> indentation style >>>>>>>>>> Josep Puigdemont(joseppc) wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Can we find a solution so these structures are kept as const? If I >>>>>>>>>> get this correctly, apart from the linked list embedded in the "base >>>>>>>>>> class", there is nothing that should be mutable here, right? >>>>>>>>>>> Josep Puigdemont(joseppc) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> how and where are these `enable_link_*` variables used? >>>>>>>>>>> How will this work with dynamically loadable modules? >>>>>>>>>>>> Josep Puigdemont(joseppc) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Isn't this going to declare an external function prototype called >>>>>>>>>>>> odp_pktio_ops_open(...)? However the implementation won't exist, >>>>>>>>>>>> right? >>>>>>>>>>>> I understand we need to define the function types >>>>>>>>>>>> (odp_pktio_ops_open_t) for use in the structure below, but do we >>>>>>>>>>>> need to declare all those function prototypes in this header file? >>>>>>>>>>>>> GBalakrishna wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>> We have the working solution currently in linux-dpdk. Question >>>>>>>>>>>>> is, why we still want to have it in linux-generic ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He Yi(heyi-linaro) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, Krishna, as I replied in another email, I suggest an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach that add workable solutions first and after then remove >>>>>>>>>>>>>> obsolete code. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> With PR#140 it looks likes that we removed linux-generic dpdk >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pktio and lost dpdk pktio at all, now wait for a new design >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which seems still in discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll comment these in your PR as a review suggestion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GBalakrishna wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I feel we don't need PKTIO_DPDK anylonger as we now already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have it from linux-dpdk. I have sent a PR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [https://github.com/Linaro/odp/pull/140](url) with necessary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updates. https://github.com/Linaro/odp/pull/139#discussion_r139837400 updated_at 2017-09-19 23:05:51