On 10/14/2016 5:27 PM, ouster at cs.stanford.edu (John Ousterhout) wrote:
> It sounds like my patch would break some existing software, so it probably
> doesn't make sense right now.
>
> I'd still argue that the current mechanism has a number of problems, and it
> should probably undergo a compreh
It sounds like my patch would break some existing software, so it probably
doesn't make sense right now.
I'd still argue that the current mechanism has a number of problems, and it
should probably undergo a comprehensive overhaul at some point in the
future.
-John-
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 2:39 P
> Hi John,
>
> > Before this patch, DPDK used the file ~/.rte_config as a lock to
> > detect potential interference between multiple DPDK applications
> > running on the same machine. However, if a single user ran DPDK
> > applications concurrently on several different machines, and if the
> > use
2016-10-13 09:20, John Ousterhout:
> Hi Harry,
>
> But, given the existence of the --file-prefix option, isn't it already
> unsafe for Collectd to check only for .rte_config? If it's important for
> other programs to be able to find the config files, it seems to me that a
> more robust mechanism i
>
> It's true that users can patch around this problem (and I started off doing
> just that), but why impose this inconvenience on users when DPDK
> can just "do the right thing" to begin with? For example, it took me several
> hours to figure out why the problem was occurring and then to
> hun
rom: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of John Ousterhout
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: avoid unnecessary conflicts over
>> rte_config file
>
> For example, it took me several hours
> to figure out why the problem was occurring and then to hunt down th
Hi John,
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of John Ousterhout
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: avoid unnecessary conflicts over
> rte_config file
> For example, it took me several hours
> to figure out why the problem was occurring and then to hunt do
g the default seems a bad idea to me.
>
> Regards, -Harry
>
>
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Van Haaren, Harry > intel.com> wrote:
> >Hi John,
>
> >> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of John Ousterhout
> >> Subject:
Hi John,
> Before this patch, DPDK used the file ~/.rte_config as a lock to detect
> potential interference between multiple DPDK applications running on the
> same machine. However, if a single user ran DPDK applications concurrently
> on several different machines, and if the user's home direct
n-
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Van Haaren, Harry <
harry.van.haaren at intel.com> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of John Ousterhout
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: avoid unnecessary conflicts over
> rte_config
It's true that users can patch around this problem (and I started off doing
just that), but why impose this inconvenience on users when DPDK can just
"do the right thing" to begin with? For example, it took me several hours
to figure out why the problem was occurring and then to hunt down the
--fil
Before this patch, DPDK used the file ~/.rte_config as a lock to detect
potential interference between multiple DPDK applications running on the
same machine. However, if a single user ran DPDK applications concurrently
on several different machines, and if the user's home directory was shared
betw
12 matches
Mail list logo
