[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: change init macro as exec environment specific

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 10/11/2017 3:33 PM, jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com (Jerin Jacob) wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
>> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 15:02:51 +0200
>> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
>> To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com>
>> Cc: dev at dpdk.org, bruce.richardson at intel.com
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: change init macro as exec environment
>>  specific
>>
>> 07/08/2017 14:04, Jerin Jacob:
>>> baremetal execution environments may have a different
>>> method to enable RTE_INIT instead of using compiler
>>> constructor scheme. Move RTE_INIT* definition under
>>> exec-env to support different execution environments.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com>
>>> ---
>>>  app/test-eventdev/evt_test.h                       |  2 +-
>>>  lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/Makefile                 |  2 +-
>>>  .../bsdapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_eal.h          | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_log.c             |  2 +
>>>  lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_bus.h            |  2 +
>>>  lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_eal.h            |  6 ---
>>>  lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_tailq.h          |  2 +
>>>  lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/Makefile               |  2 +-
>>>  .../linuxapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_eal.h        | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  9 files changed, 111 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>  create mode 100644 lib/librte_eal/bsdapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_eal.h
>>>  create mode 100644 lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_eal.h
>>
>> I am not a big fan of duplicating code for Linux and BSD.
>>
>> Maybe we should have different splits and include a common file
>> in Linux and BSD?
> 
> OK. This is doable.
> 
>>
>> I feel it would be easier to think about the split when adding
>> a new environment.
>> It is also an open question whether we want to support (again) some
>> bare metal environments.
> 
> IMO, A factor could be, how much we are OK to change?
> 
> Our internal prototype implementation for a bare metal environment
> shows things are already in place and may need minor changes like this to
> accommodate a bare metal execution environment(accounting the latest
> changes of moving pci to driver/pci/..)
> 
> If no one care about need for such abstraction then we could drop this
> patch. We can always keep local copy of such patches in our internal
> tree. I thought to upstream it as it may be useful for someone else and
> it is easy for us maintain if changes are in
> lib/librte_eal/<new environment>/eal/ and drivers/*/
 Hi Jerin, Thomas,

This is an old patch, the abstraction seems good idea but it comes with a
duplication.

Is there an intention to continue the work? Are we waiting for any decision?
Any objection to mark it as rejected?

Thanks,
ferruh