Re: [dpdk-dev] Vendor specific sub-trees under next-net

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

13/10/2017 01:31, Ferruh Yigit:
> Hi Thomas, et al
> 
> Previously it has been mentioned [1] to have vendor specific driver
> trees under next-net.
> 
> And recently Mellanox agreed to have a Mellanox tree [2].
> 
> Intel also agrees to have next-net-intel, and Helin will be maintaining
> it, thanks to Helin for volunteering.

Good news, thanks

> Other vendors with multiple drivers are Cavium, 6wind and NXP.
> 
> - Is there a name for Mellanox maintainer?
> 
> - What do other vendors, mentioned above, thinks about creating their
> own sub-tree?
> 
> - Are the vendor sub-trees and their maintainers need to be approved by
> tech-board?

Yes every dpdk.org git trees must be approved by the techboard.
The next meeting is tomorrow.

> And what I understand from vendor specific sub-trees is, instead of
> driver patches going into next-net directly, they will go into vendor
> tree and next-net will pull from them.

Yes we are creating a new git tree layer below next-net.

> This will distribute the maintenance work among the vendors, also will
> give more control to vendors on their patches.

It is very good to distribute workload.
In 17.11-rc1, there were more than 500 patches managed in next-net.
Thanks Ferruh

> Thanks,
> ferruh
> 
> 
> [1]
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-September/075094.html
> 
> [2]
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-October/078277.html