> On Apr 2, 2019, at 7:57 AM, Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote:
>
> 11/10/2017 16:33, Jerin Jacob:
>> From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
>>> 07/08/2017 14:04, Jerin Jacob:
>>>> baremetal execution environments may have a different
>>>> method to enable RTE_INIT instead of using compiler
>>>> constructor scheme. Move RTE_INIT* definition under
>>>> exec-env to support different execution environments.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> app/test-eventdev/evt_test.h | 2 +-
>>>> lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/Makefile | 2 +-
>>>> .../bsdapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_eal.h | 51
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> I sent a patch to flatten the hierarchy, removing exec-env.
> And I'm not sure about the file name rte_eal.h.
> Please could you move it to lib/librte_eal/<os>/eal/include/rte_exec_env.h
> or another better name? Note that Windows is introducing rte_os.h.
> PS: I'm not sure about the intent of rte_os.h. Should it be rte_libc.h?
I agree here unless the rte_os.h or (rte_libc.h) is really a header to just
include rte_windows_libc.h, rte_linux_libc.h or rte_<OS>_libc.h to simplify
including OS specific headers and differences in libc designs.
>
>>>> lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_log.c | 2 +
>>>> lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h | 2 +
>>>> lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal.h | 6 ---
>>>> lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_tailq.h | 2 +
>>>> lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/Makefile | 2 +-
>>>> .../linuxapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_eal.h | 51
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> I am not a big fan of duplicating code for Linux and BSD.
>>>
>>> Maybe we should have different splits and include a common file
>>> in Linux and BSD?
>>
>> OK. This is doable.
>
> After some thoughts about Windows port, I think we need to consider
> a better split.
> The constructors are the same for Linux, BSD and Windows, isn't it?
> Is it related to splitting between POSIX libc and others?
>
>
>
Regards,
Keith