Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 0/4] examples: add performance-thread

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

> > > Intel may have some milestone to get it into DPDK 2.2 but really this 
> > > seems too late...
> > 
> > >>>Yes, sure it is too late to have enough discussions in 2.2 timeframe
> > >Just to understand what we mean by too late...
> > >The original RFC was issued on 2nd September.
> > >Thus there have been some three months available for discussion, and for people to raise any questions or concerns.
> > >The first patch was available on 30th September, and a number of subsequent patch versions have been issued, meaning the code has been available for review for two month
> > >As mentioned in the reply to Stephen, there has been no adverse feedback during this period.
> > >/Ian
> > 
> > Hi Thomas/Stephen
> > 
> > I agree with Ian, how much time is expected for a discussion to happen? 
> > 
> > As Ian stated, the feature was stated in our 2.2 planned feature list, we created a RFC over 3 months ago, and there's been code available for review for over 2 months now! (not to mention several version updates, docs, etc.). 
> > Given this, I believe that there has been ample time for the community to review and provide feedback rather than waiting until the eve of RC3 and then requesting more time. 
> > 
> > In addition, by making it a sample application first people can test it, see if it's useful, and further enhance it. Based on usefulness and feedback, we can then decide whether to make it a DPDK library in a future release, make it a separate library somewhere else, or do nothing further on it
> > 
> > For these reasons, I believe it should be merged into RC3

I am not against this idea.
I just say that we have no time anymore for discussions.
There was no review probably because it is "just" an example.
Given that the code is huge, it would be better to have some good feedback
for its integration. But it does not hurt to integrate anyway.
The only problem is the maintenance overload. When we change something in
a library, every examples must be updated to keep them working.
That's why we must avoid keeping some useless examples.
So this one must be discussed during the 2.3 cycle and will see if we
keep it, shrink it, revert it or move to a library.

> Since it is an example and well documented that is fine.
> Is there an explicit statement that ABI is not binding for examples?

What do you mean by "binding"?