From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com (mail-we0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5623B58F1 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:17:10 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id w62so18609604wes.13 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 23:17:09 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=pb7WP5zAYqjlSIRTLaf4Hwe1DE+GoOUJprOhxwr3hwU=; b=NAlRA30nPXx3Q9KMUIpNNj2COPpt9T8ngYxWKWsPvRCj7YXVv3xoznk8dcj+B1lb0c wsTZ4RW+7jLQKYHAsMoJ+5I8Vn7M0L2Hwf/bKOcqfWCpU/L2EVuYEcyRqlKwA11BsAbZ 2LwPd317Ii2dXN+ybAICrgkAcBej/Kh9Cyi/VkldhgzKHvLR0S0CS4tltznhrfr44sJg LEQ77vA+47V7Bc40LHl/tmXxBmO7eRTvcz/U3DOkLL0TAxtBVqpXKJFfswbJYqP2qDM/ QEYYvyYmYzTxR9f1ZaM0ZljeFtVwB/LDrRHO/YY3Bp45ilcLqWnwXkojV8orB59Vveq+ sARA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnUAvZtgWZw+e1BBW6IMFHYueKtY91slb679kyJWE1B+FauOR9K6f28c2pTDe0g3wJjIqxh X-Received: by 10.194.83.41 with SMTP id n9mr25152041wjy.133.1421392629308; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 23:17:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (136-92-190-109.dsl.ovh.fr. [109.190.92.136]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e18sm4854048wjz.27.2015.01.15.23.17.07 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 15 Jan 2015 23:17:08 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Matthew Hall Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:16:45 +0100 Message-ID: <1649041.nrbsJgUZ3t@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.3 (Linux/3.17.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20150116014626.GA14696@mhcomputing.net> References: <20150114122352.63ef79eb@urahara> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA54C9978E@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> <20150116014626.GA14696@mhcomputing.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why nothing since 1.8.0? X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 07:17:11 -0000 2015-01-15 17:46, Matthew Hall: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 09:55:00PM +0000, O'driscoll, Tim wrote: > > As you said, there's a balance to be struck, and too many subtrees may > > become unmanageable. With respect to your concern about developers having to > > potentially develop patches against multiple subtrees, this has never been > > raised as a concern by any of our development team. Is there any historical > > data on the number of changes that would fall into this category so we can > > see if it's a real problem or not? > > Hi Tim, > > What happens when a core API like rte_mbuf gets some changes, and you have to > update the PMD's to fit? > > Do I have to make 10-20 odd random patches to separate PMD maintainers instead > of one set of patches to the PMD subtree? Then the patchset is core-wide and must be managed in the main tree. > To me it doesn't sound very nice for the guys maintaining the core. Given most > of the changes seem to be mbuf or eal this seems like a scaling issue to me. In previous release, there were a lot of changes related to i40e. And we expect to have the same level of activity for fm10k. > But maybe I misunderstood the process. No problem, we are starting experiencing this model and will write some guidelines. -- Thomas