* [dpdk-dev] Vendor specific sub-trees under next-net
@ 2017-10-12 23:29 Ferruh Yigit
2017-10-12 23:31 ` Ferruh Yigit
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ferruh Yigit @ 2017-10-12 23:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: DPDK, Zhang, Helin, Thomas Monjalon, Olga Shern, Jerin Jacob,
Hemant Agrawal, Gaetan Rivet, Pascal Mazon
Cc: Zhu, Heqing, John McNamara, Vincent JARDIN
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.
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?
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.
This will distribute the maintenance work among the vendors, also will
give more control to vendors on their patches.
Thanks,
ferruh
[1]
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-September/075094.html
[2]
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-October/078277.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] Vendor specific sub-trees under next-net
2017-10-12 23:29 [dpdk-dev] Vendor specific sub-trees under next-net Ferruh Yigit
@ 2017-10-12 23:31 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-10-12 23:51 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-10-15 5:28 ` Shahaf Shuler
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ferruh Yigit @ 2017-10-12 23:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: DPDK, Zhang, Helin, Thomas Monjalon, Olga Shern, Jerin Jacob,
Hemant Agrawal, Gaetan Rivet, Pascal Mazon
Cc: Zhu, Heqing, John McNamara, Vincent JARDIN
On 10/13/2017 12:29 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
>
> 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.
>
> This will distribute the maintenance work among the vendors, also will
> give more control to vendors on their patches.
>
>
> Thanks,
> ferruh
>
>
> [1]
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-September/075094.html
>
> [2]
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-October/078277.html
>
Using correct mail address for Thomas.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] Vendor specific sub-trees under next-net
2017-10-12 23:31 ` Ferruh Yigit
@ 2017-10-12 23:51 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-10-13 5:22 ` Hemant Agrawal
2017-10-15 5:28 ` Shahaf Shuler
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Monjalon @ 2017-10-12 23:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ferruh Yigit
Cc: DPDK, Zhang, Helin, Olga Shern, Jerin Jacob, Hemant Agrawal,
Gaetan Rivet, Pascal Mazon, Zhu, Heqing, John McNamara,
Vincent JARDIN, shahafs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] Vendor specific sub-trees under next-net
2017-10-12 23:51 ` Thomas Monjalon
@ 2017-10-13 5:22 ` Hemant Agrawal
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Hemant Agrawal @ 2017-10-13 5:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Monjalon, Ferruh Yigit
Cc: DPDK, Zhang, Helin, Olga Shern, Jerin Jacob, Gaetan Rivet,
Pascal Mazon, Zhu, Heqing, John McNamara, Vincent JARDIN,
shahafs
Hi Ferruh,
On 10/13/2017 5:21 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 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.
I am trying to understand the purpose for it. Typically vendors maintain
their own tree and send the patches up-stream post internal reviews only.
- it is because different groups within a vendor company are sending
patches and you want one maintainer to confirm/review before they come
to next-net?
- Or, too many patch series dependencies between the vendor patches. It
is getting difficult to manage.
Consider the scenerio, developer 'A' sent patches for NXP. I as
maintainer of NXP, allowed them in next-net-NXP. But when I raised pull
request to next-net - you have comments. Now I have to follow up with
developer 'A' as from patchwork point of view, his patches are accepted
and merged.
Also, it may impact the quality of review, if all pull requests are
raised around RC1 time.
Regards,
Hemant
>
> 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
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] Vendor specific sub-trees under next-net
2017-10-12 23:31 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-10-12 23:51 ` Thomas Monjalon
@ 2017-10-15 5:28 ` Shahaf Shuler
2017-10-16 4:49 ` Ferruh Yigit
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Shahaf Shuler @ 2017-10-15 5:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ferruh Yigit, DPDK, Zhang, Helin, Thomas Monjalon, Olga Shern,
Jerin Jacob, Hemant Agrawal, Gaetan Rivet, Pascal Mazon
Cc: Zhu, Heqing, John McNamara, Vincent JARDIN
Friday, October 13, 2017 2:31 AM, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 10/13/2017 12:29 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > Other vendors with multiple drivers are Cavium, 6wind and NXP.
> >
> >
> > - Is there a name for Mellanox maintainer?
I will be the maintainer of Mellanox tree.
> >
> > - 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?
> >
> >
> > 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.
We need to define this more carefully.
Sometimes a patchset has driver patches but also some patches for ethdev and testpmd/example.
What if other vendor would like to use those patches?
How frequent will be the merging between the vendor-specific tree and next-net?
Am not saying there is an issue here, just need to define the rules.
> >
> > This will distribute the maintenance work among the vendors, also will
> > give more control to vendors on their patches.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > ferruh
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdpd
> k
> > .org%2Fml%2Farchives%2Fdev%2F2017-
> September%2F075094.html&data=02%7C01
> >
> %7Cshahafs%40mellanox.com%7Cb9cdfab0a0544608bd4708d511c9597f%7Ca
> 652971
> >
> c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C636434478859873082&sdata=A15
> iL0two
> > 9nLROmTBRUf54xCZxn%2BwLCAuZNLLyNnTqE%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > [2]
> >
> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdpd
> k
> > .org%2Fml%2Farchives%2Fdev%2F2017-
> October%2F078277.html&data=02%7C01%7
> >
> Cshahafs%40mellanox.com%7Cb9cdfab0a0544608bd4708d511c9597f%7Ca652
> 971c7
> >
> d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C636434478859873082&sdata=%2B9
> tWsEXRf
> > PDZJfPqYrcRCuYmRCB3Ix7I%2FzjGwHZNbSI%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
> Using correct mail address for Thomas.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] Vendor specific sub-trees under next-net
2017-10-15 5:28 ` Shahaf Shuler
@ 2017-10-16 4:49 ` Ferruh Yigit
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ferruh Yigit @ 2017-10-16 4:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Shahaf Shuler, DPDK, Zhang, Helin, Thomas Monjalon, Olga Shern,
Jerin Jacob, Hemant Agrawal, Gaetan Rivet, Pascal Mazon
Cc: Zhu, Heqing, John McNamara, Vincent JARDIN
On 10/15/2017 6:28 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> Friday, October 13, 2017 2:31 AM, Ferruh Yigit:
>> On 10/13/2017 12:29 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Other vendors with multiple drivers are Cavium, 6wind and NXP.
>>>
>>>
>>> - Is there a name for Mellanox maintainer?
>
> I will be the maintainer of Mellanox tree.
>
>>>
>>> - 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?
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> We need to define this more carefully.
> Sometimes a patchset has driver patches but also some patches for ethdev and testpmd/example.
>
> What if other vendor would like to use those patches?
> How frequent will be the merging between the vendor-specific tree and next-net?
I am for a more frequent merge, like a weekly one, we can define a
branch for merge, what ever you put into there can be merged weekly.
Frequent merge is good for sync, as you mentioned, also good for giving
time to vendor sub-trees for change if change requested before merging
into next-net, as Hemant mentioned.
And we can discuss and change it according if it is working fine or not.
Thanks,
ferruh
>
> Am not saying there is an issue here, just need to define the rules.
>
>>>
>>> This will distribute the maintenance work among the vendors, also will
>>> give more control to vendors on their patches.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> ferruh
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdpd
>> k
>>> .org%2Fml%2Farchives%2Fdev%2F2017-
>> September%2F075094.html&data=02%7C01
>>>
>> %7Cshahafs%40mellanox.com%7Cb9cdfab0a0544608bd4708d511c9597f%7Ca
>> 652971
>>>
>> c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C636434478859873082&sdata=A15
>> iL0two
>>> 9nLROmTBRUf54xCZxn%2BwLCAuZNLLyNnTqE%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>> [2]
>>>
>> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdpd
>> k
>>> .org%2Fml%2Farchives%2Fdev%2F2017-
>> October%2F078277.html&data=02%7C01%7
>>>
>> Cshahafs%40mellanox.com%7Cb9cdfab0a0544608bd4708d511c9597f%7Ca652
>> 971c7
>>>
>> d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C636434478859873082&sdata=%2B9
>> tWsEXRf
>>> PDZJfPqYrcRCuYmRCB3Ix7I%2FzjGwHZNbSI%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>
>> Using correct mail address for Thomas.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-10-16 4:49 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-10-12 23:29 [dpdk-dev] Vendor specific sub-trees under next-net Ferruh Yigit
2017-10-12 23:31 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-10-12 23:51 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-10-13 5:22 ` Hemant Agrawal
2017-10-15 5:28 ` Shahaf Shuler
2017-10-16 4:49 ` Ferruh Yigit
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).