From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (unknown [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8347460A4; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 18:41:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80A9340BA0; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 18:41:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-qt1-f176.google.com (mail-qt1-f176.google.com [209.85.160.176]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8036C402D6 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 18:41:13 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-qt1-f176.google.com with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-467a37a2a53so13055361cf.2 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 09:41:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1737049273; x=1737654073; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=gBJPqaK2ssaDWdxBgec7WPy76yHd09y6kl7/Lot7W+o=; b=RAwKmx4xe+28ZjFF5x84HRNoZDQ8WWqmGD/YL/ZmMxPFoxyItaFEFHVhBO1Q4g4buo SSHzCw7ksRLgnSKhSSCOboiCxDihtB5LHNemOTMg5S7GE3IMgEGaAjsdejpg1sLO6SDc t1lkz+RTYlyR+sv4OoXaqpaZj2IBVM3A6RtOnD6sKWAR7x5MBSaB/acjtT+TkfS01RKy gx1Mv0B0O2QWbRDmvko+GGj/79Om7cn8SAzcfYCSUEoB4OQXIRyJGSpMEPttcPgQsYch z5NLGylw8H/0194d9tUnwsVH8jLbJb4dHYWheiRrol4TQHlTjgFgizSbJJsvV3ICKwvQ AjlA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1737049273; x=1737654073; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=gBJPqaK2ssaDWdxBgec7WPy76yHd09y6kl7/Lot7W+o=; b=b49lz9NNRC9ZnmQhJEGlgSpeaJ2Gdv5iOG7w41Rik5IPse3xOfLP7lvXj79CULT6H2 rrJ1zQX28AZueOV9A43jLl6h/QFczV4jaRQhvlVy9su6NUB6Ci8cIfV8JnxdTLqFhPbP W+T8b2Y5X94klXg9dOhHwNnPt3pm57aRXYC31hTNFDwqJEDGBctGsiE5hfdqvTmIaWR1 +4mBSG8IKLheb9EIU1qJUQdWhXv5J2GqK690WdvQKmGhJeTy8YpM8RTqNLDQzWuQI/59 vzv+1EU0Z/R1YaK09UuoDKGWn2WHUU5xeYvcZ++B6qALj4R97Jq552rtgkmxfd8hyupt JT3A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwS4YAXJLjQg01ONZBNaG8dx5T0YqQ64jYyoDO26qJ1f3AmIR1z EEl6YGjz2XO8goPVgdClBuqQL/g66gnkKUHoUSTrBsNd3lfVG8e1MKKBqFVUdmINJhvfVwrzLqN ENee9q6kowos4RmqOUrjmJWfRxFw= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncumcbrE9rja0pbooaCZ2sFMSq+OyAvEi7lOxAsvAAWFv78sJPd5p3Xa5SABGHB R59Y5Bi8ImItOZ4AlkwGD4+M5lIQ3B9BOZ99VDw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF9l3tONVB+VrSBxcmgZHJfPOvRogebWjhumFMiIvHrkL5Pa/8jip+wt25JDawiW+ztlMrnLYhqP+6OfOR3VUQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1a06:b0:466:b394:92bc with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-46c70fd1996mr521319781cf.6.1737049272748; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 09:41:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20241122125418.2857301-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <20241220143925.609044-1-bruce.richardson@intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: Jerin Jacob Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:10:47 +0530 X-Gm-Features: AbW1kvarWWsGQC6lmI1dfbg_-gJYPXrWepY7Uv69JHs8p_TiG-uodPB8ka52CI0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/24] Reduce code duplication across Intel NIC drivers To: Bruce Richardson Cc: dev@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 10:50=E2=80=AFPM Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 02:38:57PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > This RFC attempts to reduce the amount of code duplication across a > > number of Intel NIC drivers, specifically: ixgbe, i40e, iavf, and ice. > > > > The first patch extract a function from the Rx side, otherwise the > > majority of the changes are on the Tx side, leading to a converged Tx > > queue structure across the 4 drivers, and a large number of common > > functions. > > > > When considering the changes in this patchset, I'm still not entirely > satisfied with where to place the common code in the repo. Using the > "drivers/common" seems wrong to me, as it's for code common across device= s, > and having a "_common_intel" (or common_intel) folder inside drivers/net driver/common/intel is OK. I think. > seems a bit ugly to me. > > What would people think of me taking a leaf out of the kernel directory > structure playbook, and moving the intel drivers into a separate > subdirectory "drivers/net/intel"? I've done up a prototype RFC patch for I thought the reason for not keeping the company name was to - not change the directory structure if NIC block is bought by another company (driver/net/bnxk was with Boradcom then moved to Marvell) or acquired by another company. (Cavium->Marvell) > this (which I will send out on this thread), and the changes to support > that are very small. That then allows us to have a drivers/net/intel/comm= on > folder which seems rather neat to me. It also shortens the list of driver= s > directly in drivers/net by quite a bit, since there are quite a few intel > drivers accumulated over the years. :-) > > Thoughts, comments or objections? > > /Bruce