From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDBFFF929 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:45:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Dec 2016 03:45:32 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,373,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="799971905" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.29]) ([10.237.220.29]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Dec 2016 03:45:30 -0800 To: Alejandro Lucero References: <1480666653-35544-1-git-send-email-alejandro.lucero@netronome.com> <3133b0c5-672d-de7d-1690-815c7603e581@intel.com> <03ef24cd-9ef6-066c-ea9c-6ee10a480d70@intel.com> <6dcb23ec-4687-7397-bac0-1d72f3854f1e@intel.com> Cc: "Mcnamara, John" , "dev@dpdk.org" From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: <17e4540d-e11b-3854-1fe7-b4abfd95a40c@intel.com> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 11:45:30 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] nfp: add doc about supported features X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 11:45:34 -0000 On 12/16/2016 5:29 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote: > Hi, > > One question about this patch. I will send another patch soon which will > require to modify the file created by this patch. So, should I use the > dpdk-next for sending the new patch or the dpdk stable branch? I guess by "dpdk stable branch" you mean dpdk main repo, because we also have stable sub-tree which is something else. > I > understand that using the latter will imply some integration later, but > I really do not know if I should facilitate things using dpdk-next in > this case. If the patch is driver patch, please send to the next-net sub-tree, as a PMD maintainer, I expect majority of your patches should target next-net. If patch just touches the documentation of the driver, you can send it to the main tree, but both next-net sub-tree and main tree are OK since PMD documentation is not heavily modified, integration will be (mostly) easy. Specific to the this document (feature.ini), since this is directly correlated with PMD source code, to update this file, you need to update the source code. And it is better to update this document in next-net as part of the patchset that updates the PMD code. > > By the way, it is not just about this specific patch, because I have > other almost ready which I want to push before the 16.02 deadline. Please push 17.02 patches as soon as possible, although there is technically still some time for the integration deadline, practically there is less because of holidays in between ... > > <...>