From: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com" <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
"hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
"Singh, Jasvinder" <jasvinder.singh@intel.com>,
"Lu, Wenzhuo" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>,
"Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [pull-request] next-tm 17.08 pre-rc1
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 16:52:53 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891267BA78E7C@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2673927.NlZO1l8dJ0@xps>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 4, 2017 4:47 PM
> To: Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com;
> hemant.agrawal@nxp.com; Singh, Jasvinder <jasvinder.singh@intel.com>;
> Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh
> <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [pull-request] next-tm 17.08 pre-rc1
>
> Hi Cristian,
>
> > Dumitrescu, Cristian (2):
> > ethdev: add traffic management ops get API
> > ethdev: add traffic management API
>
> 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.
>
> 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. The 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. Why do things differently for TM API?
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 rather than a hard requirement (sorry for not explaining it my rationale better at the time). You also had several other comments and requests that we fulfilled, as described in the revision history.
So, what do you want me to do? If you still want to go ahead with this request, 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-04 16:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-04 15:38 Cristian Dumitrescu
2017-07-04 15:47 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-07-04 16:52 ` Dumitrescu, Cristian [this message]
2017-07-04 20:21 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-07-05 10:36 ` Dumitrescu, Cristian
2017-07-09 20:01 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-07-10 7:43 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2017-07-10 7:51 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-07-10 10:55 ` Dumitrescu, Cristian
2017-07-10 12:57 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-07-10 13:21 ` Dumitrescu, Cristian
2017-07-10 13:49 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-07-10 15:46 ` Dumitrescu, Cristian
2017-07-10 15:54 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-07-10 16:47 ` Dumitrescu, Cristian
2017-07-10 16:58 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-07-11 18:20 ` Dumitrescu, Cristian
2017-07-12 17:33 ` Thomas Monjalon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891267BA78E7C@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
--cc=jasvinder.singh@intel.com \
--cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=wenzhuo.lu@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).