From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A65FE5A38 for ; Fri, 15 May 2015 14:56:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 May 2015 05:56:27 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,433,1427785200"; d="scan'208";a="726447659" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.220.79]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 15 May 2015 05:56:25 -0700 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 15 May 2015 13:56:25 +0025 Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 13:56:25 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20150515125625.GA5884@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <1431012951-6423-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <20150513134048.GA13080@bricha3-MOBL3> <20150515123637.GA10656@bricha3-MOBL3> <39769837.qq9gic58Ll@xps13> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <39769837.qq9gic58Ll@xps13> Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 00/19] Move PMDs to drivers directory X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 12:56:29 -0000 On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 02:50:37PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2015-05-15 13:36, Bruce Richardson: > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:40:48PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 03:33:27PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > 2015-05-13 11:01, Bruce Richardson: > > > > > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 09:30:45PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > >> 2015-05-12 19:04, Bruce Richardson: > > > > >>> drivers/e1000/e1000/e1000_hw.h | 1026 ++++ > > > > >> > > > > >> As explained in a previous comment, > > > > >> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-May/017509.html > > > > >> I think this path would be better: > > > > >> drivers/net/e1000/base/e1000_hw.h > > > > > > > > > > Two reasons why I didn't create the "net" subfolder: > > > > > 1. I initally forgot to consider it :-( > > > > > 2. While we may at some future point have other device driver types, are we really > > > > > needing to start categorising PMDs at this point? > > > > > > > > > > As for the base driver part, I was viewing that as a something that should be > > > > > a separate patch set, since it's unrelated to moving things to the drivers > > > > > subdir. > > > > > > > > I understand your points and I partially agree. > > > > However, file moves may be perturbing because it change habits > > > > and may complicate a bit the git history browsing. > > > > So I think it's better to minimize such moves and do altogether. > > > > > > > Ok. I'll see about renaming the base code directories as part of the overall > > > move process [Unless there are objections from any of the driver maintainers]. > > > > > > As for drivers vs drivers/net, I suppose there is no real difference in what > > > the path actually is, so I can make that change too. However, I still think I > > > prefer the shorter path. Anyone else any opinions on this [before I start > > > reworking this again]? > > > > > > /Bruce > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > a specific question on how you want the rename of the "base" driver directories. > > Can I take it from your question that you want the base driver renaming to be > > merged into a single commit with the rest of the move for the driver? For example, > > as part of the patch move from "lib/librte_pmd_e1000" to "drivers/net/e1000" we > > also rename the "e1000" subdir to "base". > > Yes, to minimize number of patches moving files (and breaking history for > some tools). > > > The slight problem with this approach - of trying to do both moves in a single > > patch is that the rename of the subdirectory "e1000" involves changes to other > > files in the librte_pmd_e1000 directory which are being moved, so we can't > > have a clean patch that just moves files and doesn't touch those files which are > > being moved. Therefore, from a patch cleanliness point of view, the renames > > to the base directory should be a separate patch, which I can make part of this > > series. > > The changes are only in Makefile and include lines, right? > I think it's not a big deal to have small changes. But maybe it will make > difficult to read the move with some tools. > Feel free to adopt the solution you prefer if nobody else has an experienced > opinion. > I would tend to agree that we are as well merging the commits into one, but I just want to be sure about it before I go doing the work and respinning the patches. :-) So, any objections to doing 2 moves in one patch, please raise them soon, i.e. today. Regards, /Bruce