2016-07-14 22:45, Wiles, Keith: > > On Jul 14, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> > > wrote: > > > > Thanks Keith for continuing work. > > > > 2016-07-14 14:31, Keith Wiles: > >> lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/Makefile | 1 + > >> lib/librte_eal/common/arch/arm/rte_spinlock.c | 46 > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> lib/librte_eal/common/arch/ppc_64/rte_spinlock.c | 46 > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> lib/librte_eal/common/arch/tile/rte_spinlock.c | 46 > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> lib/librte_eal/common/arch/x86/rte_spinlock.c | 46 > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> .../common/include/arch/x86/rte_spinlock.h | 14 ++----- > >> lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/Makefile | 1 + > > > > I am not sure we should add a .c file for each arch, given it is called only > > from arch/x86/rte_spinlock.h. > > I did not like having the .c for everyone, but the previous comment seemed > to suggest it. I am willing to change it any better method, just let me > know what you think. I would like just one.
I will make sure it is not needed. In this case, we can keep the original patch from Damjan and just do some trivial changes. I can make them quickly before RC3. > On a side note I have combined the bsdapp and linuxapp into a single > directory before. It is doable and it eliminates a number of duplicate > files or code. Yes patches to remove duplicated code are welcome. But please do not introduce more #ifdefs. I think it is better to keep separate directories bsdapp/ and linuxapp/ while increasing the shared code in common/ as much as possible. Some functions are really different and are better handled separately. > Plus a also added support for OS X for DPDK, but I do not have access > to any NICs with that version yet other then virtual ones. > I could submit it and may be someone will write the kext to make it work. :-) Maybe that OS X would deserve a third separate directory. I guess you wanted it only for dev testing? Why not just use a Linux or FreeBSD VM?
