From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04A4AA0487 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 18:30:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC5CA3DC; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 18:30:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from new4-smtp.messagingengine.com (new4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.230]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ADE3235; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 18:30:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B1052046; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 12:30:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 03 Jul 2019 12:30:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=TFnM/1yBnCTrYawy84+tuw5l8fVI2MANbZUWM5Pjzv0=; b=gPkChLRyaPCY 5F6TmbBXBUASQDTszPoPKKfrF0XJqawtpch7QrlDUPvaAcQAUGc0wFnvhbOBoKAb Ca9jhha6BqpgXGWkBfoGb5LIiIN5GL2oN9iXUhXQotbBfpTegukEh5XWqgt2jlDD 2vfSFfrvy0qp/hpcJ3SP1pTG5NR/7g0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=TFnM/1yBnCTrYawy84+tuw5l8fVI2MANbZUWM5Pjz v0=; b=udNiC/+uk66qNglsKGmMYSHpst1+3tSHjMIloiBgmYXAgN4schs88ZMET wD/PpN1l+5R2t7uUqabCiB4qvmvfQh5AOVNpAKKYpIbK4u99zT77Nv4qy/cwusNC eYHamPqjj+FLKG01GVxY173h2kvmC+8geGYsxlR9yckY432SsXwWjaq1onf+WU+t F9up1RGKx95kjtdSFmZzeBayPf+ORvlPeYCUX7iI+fe29j6vT5+F13Uq10BgxUfu ixGTgVqMtREzh9KFCoc1QNzvKK+sfJqPav0QHf+nWRMRI8i1m3XppEpf9hWYFKQt qh6vAsszy0XNVb40eBe+mwq+kKV5A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrfedtgddutddvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukf hppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhh ohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0910280060; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 12:30:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Anoob Joseph Cc: Mattias =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F6nnblom?= , Bruce Richardson , Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , "dev@dpdk.org" , Nikhil Rao , Erik Gabriel Carrillo , Abhinandan Gujjar , Pablo de Lara , Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya , Lukas Bartosik , Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula , Hemant Agrawal , Nipun Gupta , Harry van Haaren , Liang Ma , "techboard@dpdk.org" Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 18:30:34 +0200 Message-ID: <1566776.CC23m1cY86@xps> In-Reply-To: References: <1729509.9S1lrLiWIz@xps> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH 00/39] adding eventmode helper library X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 03/07/2019 11:37, Anoob Joseph: > From: Thomas Monjalon > > 03/07/2019 03:35, Anoob Joseph: > > > [Anoob] Initially the target would be only DPDK applications. > > > As I had mentioned earlier, I'm dropping the idea of making this a > > > library/common code. My proposal is to have all the code in > > > l2fwd-event application itself. > > > In that case, would you have any problem? > > > > No I think that's fine to do whatever you want in this forked example. > > But remind that you won't be allowed to fork one more example until things > > are settled down and approved by the technical board. > > [Anoob] Idea was never to fork any example. If we are in agreement with going with just l2fwd-event (and all the code in one directory), I can start working on v2 patches with the agreed changes. > > Also, what is your suggestion on when we can take up a more complicated example (let's say ipsec-secgw)? When would you say things are settled down? It was discussed in the techboard today. Please read the summary below. We want to keep l2fwd as simple as possible. So we agree to have a fork of l2fwd for eventdev. It was proposed to integrate eventdev in l2fwd, l3fwd and ipsec-secgw. l2fwd will get eventdev integration in its fork l2fwd-event. l3fwd will get eventdev integration in a separate file. ipsec-secgw will get more complex eventdev integration. We don't expect to have more examples impacted. There will be no code shared for eventdev integration between the examples. Hope it clarifies the situation.