Hi David,
On Thursday 05 October 2017 02:08 PM, Hunt, David wrote:
>
> Hi Santosh,
>
> On 4/10/2017 4:36 PM, santosh wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday 04 October 2017 02:45 PM, David Hunt wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Nemanja Marjanovic <nemanja.marjano...@intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rory Sexton <rory.sex...@intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Hunt <david.h...@intel.com>
>>> ---
>> my 2cent:
>> General comment on implementation approach:
>> IMO, we should avoid PMD details in common lib area.
>> example: file channel_commons.h has ifdef clutter referencing
>> i40e pmds all over.
>>
>> Perhaps we should introduce opaque handle example void * or introduce pmd
>> specific callback/handle which points to PMD specific metadata in power
>> library.
>>
>> Example:
>> struct channel_packet {
>> void *pmd_specific_metadata;
>> }
>>
>> Or someway via callback (I'm not sure at the moment)
>> so that we could hide PMD details in common area.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> I would agree that PMD specific details are good left to the PMDs, however I
> think that the initial
> example should be OK as is, and as new PMDs are added, we can find
> commonality between them
> which stays in the example, and any really specific stuff can be pushed back
> behind an opaque.
>
> What about the v5 I submitted (without the #ifdef's)? Are you OK with that
> for this release, and we can
> fine tune as other PMDS are added in future releases?
>
Yes. But in future releases, we should do more code clean up in power lib and
example area..
meaning; current example implementation uses names like _vsi.. specific to
intel NICs,
we should remove such naming and their dependency code from example area.
Thanks.
> Regards,
> Dave.
>
>
