From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] dpdk: Allow for dynamic enablement of some isolated features Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:53:45 +0200 Message-ID: <1922554.0Xb76TrHgY@xps13> References: <1406665466-29654-1-git-send-email-nhorman@tuxdriver.com> <20140731143228.GB20718@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20140731181032.GC20718@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: Neil Horman Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140731181032.GC20718-B26myB8xz7F8NnZeBjwnZQMhkBWG/bsMQH7oEaQurus@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" 2014-07-31 14:10, Neil Horman: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:32:28AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 03:26:45PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > Please, let's focus on the first item and we could discuss about performance > > > later. Having some different code path choosed at runtime is a big rework and > > > imply changing the compilation model (RFC welcome). > > > > Even if I misinterpreted your statement above, I'm still not sure why your > asserting this. Fixing the build to work with the default target machine is > good, and should be undertaken, and I'll happily do so, but why reject the > solution in front of you to wait for it? I'm not rejecting the solution. Let's try to improve performance of the default build with runtime checks. Seeing patches and benchmarks will be interesting. You're opening a door and I don't know if we'll see the ceiling of this room :) -- Thomas