> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monja...@6wind.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 12:51 PM > To: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.j...@nxp.com> > Cc: David Marchand <david.march...@6wind.com>; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] Introducing EAL Bus-Device-Driver Model > > 2016-12-08 10:34, Shreyansh Jain: > > On Wednesday 07 December 2016 06:54 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 2016-12-07 18:40, Shreyansh Jain: > > >> Is there anything specific that you are looking for in patchset v2? > > >> I was thinking of: > > >> 0. fixing BSD compilation issue reported by CI > > >> 1. improving the test_pci.c > > >> 2. hotplugging > > >> 3. trying to move PCI to drives/bus/pci/linux/* and resolving how > > >> drivers link to it, and how EAL resources like devargs are consumed. > > > > > > I am concerned about the time needed for all these changes. > > > Please let's make sure that the basic parts are well done and pushed, > first. > > > That's why I suggest to postpone 1, 2 and 3 to next release if possible. > > > The priority is to have a clean bus model, > > > and if time permits, integrate the NXP driver. > > > > > > > I am absolutely OK with this. > > > > Just a confirmation, though. Is it OK to have a broken test_pci.c (1) in > > a series? It is not getting compiled by default, but it would definitely > > not work if compiled (symbols are missing). > > No, that's why I said "if possible" :). > I thought 1. was about improvements. But if it does not compile, it is > a must.
Agree. I should have mentioned 'fixing the test_pci.c' rather than 'improvement'.
