-----Original Message----- > Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 12:28:32 +0000 > From: "Van Haaren, Harry" <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > CC: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Richardson, Bruce" > <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Richardson, > Bruce" <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/5] event/sw: change worker rings to > standard event rings > > > From: dev [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson > > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 4:06 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Richardson, > > Bruce > > <[email protected]> > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 5/5] event/sw: change worker rings to > > standard event rings > > > > Now that we have a standard event ring implementation for passing events > > core-to-core, use that in place of the custom event rings in the software > > eventdev. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <[email protected]> > > Agree with 99% of this patch, but due to the implementation (with memzone > lookup), > we need to change one part of the sw_port_setup() function. > > The change is required to allow port_setup() to be called multiple times on > the same > port, which is required to re-configure a port that has already been > configured once. > > I can send a separate fix, or I could re-spin Bruce's 5 patches, and include > the fix. > > Given this is a small, non-datapath modification to the SW PMD, my preference > is to > ack this patch once I've posted a separate patch fix for the SW PMD. > > @Jerin, any preference?
I think, you can send it as a separate patch. I can squash the fix patch with this patch or apply it as separate one if you are not concerned about breaking when we do "git bisect". Let me know.
