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
