From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [v2 20/23] librte_cfgfile: interpret config files Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 20:50:10 +0200 Message-ID: <3206025.nBbheCu3gE@xps13> References: <1401905319-8882-1-git-send-email-cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com> <10629744.mhUtJ8hJ7T@xps13> <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891262E090572@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891262E090572-kPTMFJFq+rEMvF1YICWikbfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@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" 2014-10-17 18:16, Dumitrescu, Cristian: > Hi Tomas, > > Yes, you're right, we need to close on this pending item. > Thanks for bringing it up. > > I am currently working on a patch series, once I send it out > I will come back and look into to qos_sched. Is this OK with you? Yes, thank you. > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org] > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 5:46 PM > To: Dumitrescu, Cristian > Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org; Wu, Jingjing; Liu, Jijiang > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [v2 20/23] librte_cfgfile: interpret config files > > Hi Cristian, > > 2014-06-04 19:08, Cristian Dumitrescu: > > This library provides a tool to interpret config files that have standard > > structure. > > > > It is used by the Packet Framework examples/ip_pipeline sample application. > > > > It originates from examples/qos_sched sample application and now it makes > > this code available as a library for other sample applications to use. > > The code duplication with qos_sched sample app to be addressed later. > > 4 months ago, you said that this duplication will be adressed later. > Neither you nor anyone at Intel submitted a patch to clean up that. > I just want to be sure that "later" doesn't mean "never" because > I'm accepting another "later" word for cleaning old filtering API. > > Maybe you just forgot it so please prove me that I'm right to accept > "later" clean-up, in general. > > Thanks