Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH 00/39] adding eventmode helper library

[Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>]

Hi Thomas,

> 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.

Thanks for taking this up in the techboard meeting. The above plan looks fine to me. Will prepare v2 with the above mentioned changes.

Thanks,
Anoob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:01 PM
> To: Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>
> Cc: Mattias Rönnblom <mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com>; Bruce Richardson
> <bruce.richardson@intel.com>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
> <jerinj@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Nikhil Rao <nikhil.rao@intel.com>;
> Erik Gabriel Carrillo <erik.g.carrillo@intel.com>; Abhinandan Gujjar
> <abhinandan.gujjar@intel.com>; Pablo de Lara
> <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>; Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya
> <pathreya@marvell.com>; Lukas Bartosik <lbartosik@marvell.com>; Pavan
> Nikhilesh Bhagavatula <pbhagavatula@marvell.com>; Hemant Agrawal
> <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>; Nipun Gupta <nipun.gupta@nxp.com>; Harry
> van Haaren <harry.van.haaren@intel.com>; Liang Ma
> <liang.j.ma@intel.com>; techboard@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH 00/39] adding eventmode helper
> library
> 
> 03/07/2019 11:37, Anoob Joseph:
> > From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > > 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.
>