From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/librte_ether: bypass code cleanup Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 11:19:22 +0200 Message-ID: <1927507.Pj5eqIlGbv@xps13> References: <1468218079-8064-1-git-send-email-wenzhuo.lu@intel.com> <2092181.9Q4Kasxdod@xps13> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B7C73C@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: "Lu, Wenzhuo" , dev@dpdk.org To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com (mail-wm0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BD8F2BBD for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 11:19:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f44.google.com with SMTP id i5so7592177wmg.0 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 02:19:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B7C73C@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > > Hmmm. It's true it is cleaner. But I am not sure having a generic API > > for bypass is a good idea at all. > > I was thinking to totally remove it. > > Why to remove it? > As I know there are people who use that functionality. > > > Maybe we can try to have a specific API by including ixgbe_bypass.h in > > the application. > > Hmm, isn't that what we were trying to get rid of in last few years? > HW specific stuff? Yes exactly. I have the feeling the bypass API is specific to ixgbe. Isn't it? As we will probably see other features specific to only one device. Instead of adding a function in the generic API, I think it may be saner to include a driver header. Then if it appears to be used in more devices, it can be generalized. What do you think of this approach?