From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] log: respect rte_openlog_stream calls before rte_eal_init Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:09:20 +0200 Message-ID: <8112016.EkWS41KYkO@xps13> References: <20160928204244.8288-1-ouster@cs.stanford.edu> <39898498.0kdAxWznnB@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: John Ousterhout Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f47.google.com (mail-wm0-f47.google.com [74.125.82.47]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 968D06CCF for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:09:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f47.google.com with SMTP id c78so13241923wme.1 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 00:09:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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" 2016-10-11 14:46, John Ousterhout: > All of your suggestions look reasonable and fairly straightforward; I'll > work on a new patch that includes them. > > Given that rte_eal_log_init is a no-op (and won't even be invoked), would > it be better to remove that function completely, and even delete the file > containing it (eal_log.c), or is it better to retain the empty function in > order to maintain a parallel structure with Linux? Personally I'd lean > towards deleting the file. As it stands, the interface to that function > doesn't even make sense for BSD; the arguments were chosen for Linux and > are ignored in BSD. > > Let me know your preference. Yes you can remove the file.