[inetstack] Moving In Source tree #162
Conversation
ppenna
force-pushed
the
enhancement-inetstack-src-tree
branch
from
182d39b
to
4542ccb
Compare
ppenna
changed the title
| @@ -5,6 +5,22 @@ | |||
| #![deny(clippy::all)] | |||
| #![feature(maybe_uninit_uninit_array, new_uninit)] | |||
| #![feature(try_blocks)] | |||
| #![cfg_attr(feature = "strict", deny(clippy:all))] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just out of curiosity (this was also present in the old inetstack/src/lib.rs these were apparently pulled from) does this actually do anything different if feature "strict" is specified? Since there is a non-qualified "deny(clippy:all)" up on line 5?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is redundant. I shall now get the integration cleaner. Thanks for noting this.
| libdpdk = [ "dpdk-rs" ] | ||
| mlx4 = [ "dpdk-rs/mlx4" ] | ||
| mlx5 = [ "dpdk-rs/mlx5" ] | ||
| profiler = [ ] | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| [profile.release] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Inetstack's Cargo.toml (which appears to have been folded into here) also had a "profile.dev" for debug builds. Do we not want that here? Or is it covered by something somewhere else?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well noted. I'm working on this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks good to me, so long as my comment on Cargo.toml isn't relevant.
And I did actually review every file (you must be exhausted from fixing up all those namespace use statements). I didn't flag the inconsistency between specifying things via super vs. self vs. crate since we've never been consistent about that before, although at some point we should probably go through everything and fix those.
Description
In this PR I move in the inetstack and runtime source trees.