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 0F24820F for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 18:52:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Jul 2017 09:52:56 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,309,1496127600"; d="scan'208";a="122219395" Received: from irsmsx110.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.25]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Jul 2017 09:52:54 -0700 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.133]) by irsmsx110.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.15.126]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 17:52:54 +0100 From: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" To: Thomas Monjalon CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , "jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com" , "hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" , "Singh, Jasvinder" , "Lu, Wenzhuo" , "Yigit, Ferruh" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [pull-request] next-tm 17.08 pre-rc1 Thread-Index: AQHS9NvD1n6mRK62C0yv42q5/ePxaaJDvy6AgAAYycA= Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 16:52:53 +0000 Message-ID: <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891267BA78E7C@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1499182731-86830-1-git-send-email-cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com> <2673927.NlZO1l8dJ0@xps> In-Reply-To: <2673927.NlZO1l8dJ0@xps> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiZWM4N2U5MTctODc0Yi00YTgyLWI3NjMtNzkzYTUwMGRjMjQzIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjUuOS4zIiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6Ilk3MktxbG5STVBwRitDcGc2NnBSOEZ3ZWNNMWF6VU5NM29UWU1kM0VwaEE9In0= x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 10.0.102.7 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [pull-request] next-tm 17.08 pre-rc1 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 16:52:57 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net] > Sent: Tuesday, July 4, 2017 4:47 PM > To: Dumitrescu, Cristian > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com; > hemant.agrawal@nxp.com; Singh, Jasvinder ; > Lu, Wenzhuo ; Yigit, Ferruh > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [pull-request] next-tm 17.08 pre-rc1 >=20 > Hi Cristian, >=20 > > Dumitrescu, Cristian (2): > > ethdev: add traffic management ops get API > > ethdev: add traffic management API >=20 > The original request was to split this huge patch. > It is too messy to bring a whole new API area in one patch. > We have nothing to refer in case of bug, and it is hard to dive in. >=20 > Please, could you try to split it, bringing features one by one? Hi Thomas, Technically, it can be done, but IMO it should not be done this way for the= following reasons: 1. None of the new APIs recently introduced in DPDK follow this approach. T= he rte_flow [1] and the eventdev [2] API are of the same order of magnitude= with the TM API, and both were introduced as a single patch header file. W= hy do things differently for TM API? =09 2. Breaking an API header file into multiple patches usually does not make = sense because the sub-components are inter-connected and cross-referenced. = When evaluating an API, it needs to be evaluated as a whole for consistency= reasons rather than piece by piece. On TM API for example, the capability = API is inter-connected with congestion management, shaping, scheduling and = marking features; cman and shaping are connected to the nodes that make up = the scheduling tree, etc. IMO the end result is adding more confusion than = clarity. This request also comes very late in our preparation to hit RC1. I know you= made this mention previously, but I regarded it as a comment/suggestion ra= ther than a hard requirement (sorry for not explaining it my rationale bett= er at the time). You also had several other comments and requests that we f= ulfilled, as described in the revision history. So, what do you want me to do? If you still want to go ahead with this requ= est, I will do my best to do it and still meet RC1. Regards, Cristian [1] eventdev API: http://www.dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-November/050356.= html [2] rte_flow API: http://www.dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-December/052951.= html