[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 00/25] Introducing rte_driver/rte_device generalization

2016-09-13 Thread Shreyansh Jain
Hi Declan, Apologies for delayed reply and thank you so much for your inputs. On Friday 09 September 2016 09:41 PM, Declan Doherty wrote: > On 07/09/16 15:07, Shreyansh Jain wrote: >> Based on master (e22856313) >> >> Background: >> === >> >> It includes two different patch-sets floated o

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 00/25] Introducing rte_driver/rte_device generalization

2016-09-12 Thread David Marchand
Hello Shreyansh, On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Shreyansh Jain wrote: > This patch is part of larger aim to: > > + > eth_driver (PMD)|-> rte_driver > crypto_driver (PMD) | ^ > | | > + |

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 00/25] Introducing rte_driver/rte_device generalization

2016-09-09 Thread Shreyansh Jain
Hi Stephen, On Thursday 08 September 2016 10:19 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: [...] >> > I think yes. There are separate lists for all device types which helps >> > keep the EAL code free of type checks. But, functionally it doesn't make >> > that big a different between a common or specific list.

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 00/25] Introducing rte_driver/rte_device generalization

2016-09-09 Thread Declan Doherty
On 07/09/16 15:07, Shreyansh Jain wrote: > Based on master (e22856313) > > Background: > === > > It includes two different patch-sets floated on ML earlier: > * Original patch series is from David Marchand [1], [2]. > `- This focused mainly on PCI (PDEV) part > `- v7 of this was posted

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 00/25] Introducing rte_driver/rte_device generalization

2016-09-08 Thread Shreyansh Jain
Hi Stephen, On Thursday 08 September 2016 12:10 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 19:37:52 +0530 > Shreyansh Jain wrote: > >> Based on master (e22856313) >> >> Background: >> === >> >> It includes two different patch-sets floated on ML earlier: >> * Original patch series

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 00/25] Introducing rte_driver/rte_device generalization

2016-09-08 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 12:40:08 +0530 Shreyansh Jain wrote: > > Overall I like to see the clean separation. > > Are you sure you removed as much as possible from PCI? > > I am not very sure of what you mean. > > If you are referring to whether all PCI PMDs have been taken care of, I > think they

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 00/25] Introducing rte_driver/rte_device generalization

2016-09-07 Thread Shreyansh Jain
Based on master (e22856313) Background: === It includes two different patch-sets floated on ML earlier: * Original patch series is from David Marchand [1], [2]. `- This focused mainly on PCI (PDEV) part `- v7 of this was posted by me [8] in August/2016 * Patch series [4] from Jan Vi

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v9 00/25] Introducing rte_driver/rte_device generalization

2016-09-07 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Wed, 7 Sep 2016 19:37:52 +0530 Shreyansh Jain wrote: > Based on master (e22856313) > > Background: > === > > It includes two different patch-sets floated on ML earlier: > * Original patch series is from David Marchand [1], [2]. > `- This focused mainly on PCI (PDEV) part > `- v7