[dpdk-dev] weak functions in some drivers

2016-07-01 Thread Elo, Matias (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
> > >>> What is not clear to me is motivation to use weak here instead of simply > > using >CONFIG_RTE_I40E_INC_VECTOR > > >>> macro to exclude stubs in i40e_rxtx.c. It will make library smaller and > > >>> avoid > > issues like this one > > >>> which are quite hard to troubleshoot. > > >> Since

[dpdk-dev] weak functions in some drivers

2016-07-01 Thread Elo, Matias (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
> -Original Message- > From: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy [mailto:sergio.gonzalez.monroy at intel.com] > Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 1:05 PM > To: Elo, Matias (Nokia - FI/Espoo) ; > dev at dpdk.org > Cc: ferruh.yigit at intel.com; damarion at cisco.com > Subject: Re: [dpd

[dpdk-dev] weak functions in some drivers

2016-06-29 Thread Elo, Matias (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
>> What is not clear to me is motivation to use weak here instead of simply >> using >CONFIG_RTE_I40E_INC_VECTOR >> macro to exclude stubs in i40e_rxtx.c. It will make library smaller and >> avoid issues like this one >> which are quite hard to troubleshoot. > >Since this issue seen in fd.io, I

[dpdk-dev] weak functions in some drivers

2016-06-30 Thread Elo, Matias (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
> >>> What is not clear to me is motivation to use weak here instead of simply > using >CONFIG_RTE_I40E_INC_VECTOR > >>> macro to exclude stubs in i40e_rxtx.c. It will make library smaller and > >>> avoid > issues like this one > >>> which are quite hard to troubleshoot. > >> Since this issue