From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH] eal/bsd: fix core detection Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 15:17:10 -0400 Message-ID: <20141008191710.GD13306@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <1412757811-10625-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@6wind.com> <20141008105355.GA5045@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" To: David Marchand Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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" On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 01:23:49PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > Hello Neil, > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > Though, that said, why are these files diverged in the first place? At > > least as > > far as eal_lcore.c and eal.c are concerned the only differences appear to > > be > > cases of one file being updated and not the other. It seems that, rather > > than > > doing a patch like this to bring bsd up to date with linux, we should just > > de-dup the files, put them in a common location and handle any real > > behavioral > > differences with macros/ifdefs. Is there a reason for separating them? > > > > I agree that there should only be one file for those things (and a lot of > other stuff like eal_debug, eal_log etc...). > This is not that easy: I tried once and gave up because the resulting > patchset was huge. > Personally, I don't have time to dig into this. > No one ever does, thats how messes like this happen :) I've got a bsd guest installed, I'll see if I can clean it up. Neil > > -- > David Marchand