From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruce Richardson Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] introduce telemetry library Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 15:56:01 +0100 Message-ID: <20181009145601.GA11684@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1535026093-101872-1-git-send-email-ciara.power@intel.com> <4034734.dNxXkqf0MS@xps> <2030383.RfJjvT9l4E@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Van Haaren, Harry" , "Laatz, Kevin" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "stephen@networkplumber.org" , "gaetan.rivet@6wind.com" , "shreyansh.jain@nxp.com" To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87A8C1B57F for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 16:56:16 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2030383.RfJjvT9l4E@xps> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 01:41:10PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > I think it is not clean. > We should really split EAL in two parts: > - low level routines > - high level init. > > About telemetry, you can find any workaround, but it must be temporary. > In fairness, though, splitting up EAL is a fairly significant piece of work to just throw out there as a suggestion to people! Have you investigated what it would take for that, or looked at the implications of it? It's probably not something that one can just sit and do in the spur of the moment. Regards, /Bruce