From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shreyansh Jain Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/15] common ethdev linkstatus functions Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 10:49:03 +0530 Message-ID: References: <20180116183755.24542-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: To: Stephen Hemminger , Ferruh Yigit Return-path: Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn3nam01on0048.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.33.48]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 895AB1B1DE for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 06:04:53 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20180116183755.24542-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> Content-Language: en-US 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 Wednesday 17 January 2018 12:07 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > While reviewing drivers, noticed a lot of unnecessary > duplication of code in drivers for handling the eth_dev link status > information. While consolidating this, it also became obvious that > some drivers behave differently for no good reason. > > It also was a good chance to introduce atomic exchange primitives > in EAL because there are other places using cmpset where not > necessary (such as bonding). > > Mostly only compile tested only, don't have all of the hardware > available (except ixgbe and virtio) to test. > > Note: the eth_dev_link_update function return value is inconsistent > across drivers. Should be changed to be void. > > v5 > - checkpatch whitespace cleanup > > v4 > - incorporate review feedback > - rename _rte_linkstatus to rte_linkstatus > - change return value of _rte_linkstatus > - optimize get on 64bit platforms > - change return value of rte_linkstatus_set > > v3 > - align rte_linkstatus_get with rte_atomic64_read > - virtio use ETH_SPEED_NUM_10G > - add net/ > > v2 > - function names changed > - rebased to current master > [...] 1. "--in-reply-to" is recommended way ([1]) 2. Specifically here: there is a v4 already by Ferruh (targeting maintainers directly, I think) and then another by you. And with separate threads it is difficult to compare them. Maybe you prefer flat email threads - it helps people like me who don't. 3. I had put my Ack on v4 by Ferruh, but it seems dpaa2 specific code has changed from Ferruh's v4 to your v4/v5. Please ignore that Ack. I will send my acceptance on your v5. [1] http://dpdk.org/dev