On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 01:35:46PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Thomas Monjalon
> wrote:
> > 2016-07-11 13:33, Yuanhan Liu:
> >> I'm not quite sure I understood it well: are you asking us to resend
> >> what David has already send, say me for
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 07:56:16AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-07-11 13:33, Yuanhan Liu:
> > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 03:31:27PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 2016-04-20 14:43, David Marchand:
> > > > test application and kni still want to know e1000 pci devices.
> > > > So let's
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 03:31:27PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-04-20 14:43, David Marchand:
> > test application and kni still want to know e1000 pci devices.
> > So let's create headers in the driver that will be used by them.
>
> There is also an usage of ixgbe ID for the broken bypass
2016-07-11 13:33, Yuanhan Liu:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 03:31:27PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2016-04-20 14:43, David Marchand:
> > > test application and kni still want to know e1000 pci devices.
> > > So let's create headers in the driver that will be used by them.
> >
> > There is also
2016-04-20 14:43, David Marchand:
> test application and kni still want to know e1000 pci devices.
> So let's create headers in the driver that will be used by them.
There is also an usage of ixgbe ID for the broken bypass API.
Sharing those PCI ids outside of the drivers was really a wrong
2016-04-22 08:13, Neil Horman:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 02:41:38PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2016-04-21 08:08, Neil Horman:
> > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 09:27:18AM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> > > > I don't mind doing trivial changes, but I don't have time for more on
> > > > this
2016-04-21 08:08, Neil Horman:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 09:27:18AM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> > I don't mind doing trivial changes, but I don't have time for more on
> > this series.
> >
> Um, I'm not sure what to say here. The whole point of review is to help
> improve
> the code. If you
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:39:59PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Neil Horman
>> wrote:
>> >> +#ifndef RTE_PCI_DEV_ID_DECL_EM
>> >> +#define RTE_PCI_DEV_ID_DECL_EM(vend, dev)
>> >> +#endif
>> >> +
>> >>
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 09:27:18AM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:39:59PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Neil Horman
> >> wrote:
> >> >> +#ifndef RTE_PCI_DEV_ID_DECL_EM
> >> >>
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
>> +#ifndef RTE_PCI_DEV_ID_DECL_EM
>> +#define RTE_PCI_DEV_ID_DECL_EM(vend, dev)
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +#ifndef PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL
>> +/** Vendor ID used by Intel devices */
>> +#define PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL 0x8086
>> +#endif
>> +
> This is broken,
test application and kni still want to know e1000 pci devices.
So let's create headers in the driver that will be used by them.
I wanted to reuse base/ headers, but because of some headaches trying to resolve
macros redefinition collisions in kni (with ixgbe next commit), I left it as is.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 03:39:59PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> >> +#ifndef RTE_PCI_DEV_ID_DECL_EM
> >> +#define RTE_PCI_DEV_ID_DECL_EM(vend, dev)
> >> +#endif
> >> +
> >> +#ifndef PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL
> >> +/** Vendor ID used by Intel
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 02:43:44PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> test application and kni still want to know e1000 pci devices.
> So let's create headers in the driver that will be used by them.
>
> I wanted to reuse base/ headers, but because of some headaches trying to
> resolve
> macros
13 matches
Mail list logo
