Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/3] kcp: add kernel control path kernel module

[Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>]

On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:11:57 +0000
Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:

> On 3/2/2016 10:18 PM, Jay Rolette wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Stephen Hemminger
> > <stephen@networkplumber.org <mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org>> wrote:
> > 
> >     On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:33:25 -0600
> >     Jay Rolette <rolette@infiniteio.com <mailto:rolette@infiniteio.com>>
> >     wrote:
> > 
> >     > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Thomas Monjalon
> >     <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com <mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>>
> >     > wrote:
> >     >
> >     > > Hi,
> >     > > I totally agree with Avi's comments.
> >     > > This topic is really important for the future of DPDK.
> >     > > So I think we must give some time to continue the discussion
> >     > > and have netdev involved in the choices done.
> >     > > As a consequence, these series should not be merged in the
> >     release 16.04.
> >     > > Thanks for continuing the work.
> >     > >
> >     >
> >     > I know you guys are very interested in getting rid of the out-of-tree
> >     > drivers, but please do not block incremental improvements to DPDK
> >     in the
> >     > meantime. Ferruh's patch improves the usability of KNI. Don't
> >     throw out
> >     > good and useful enhancements just because it isn't where you want
> >     to be in
> >     > the end.
> >     >
> >     > I'd like to see these be merged.
> >     >
> >     > Jay
> > 
> >     The code is really not ready. I am okay with cooperative development
> >     but the current code needs to go into a staging type tree.
> >     No compatibility, no ABI guarantees, more of an RFC.
> >     Don't want vendors building products with it then screaming when it
> >     gets rebuilt/reworked/scrapped.
> > 
> > 
> > That's fair. To be clear, it wasn't my intent for code that wasn't baked
> > yet to be merged. 
> > 
> > The main point of my comment was that I think it is important not to
> > halt incremental improvements to existing capabilities (KNI in this
> > case) just because there are philosophical or directional changes that
> > the community would like to make longer-term.
> > 
> > Bird in the hand vs. two in the bush...
> > 
> 
> There are two different statements, first, code being not ready, I agree
> a fair point (although there is no argument to that statement, it makes
> hard to discuss this, I will put aside this), this implies when code is
> ready it can go in to repo.
> 
> But not having kernel module, independent from their state against what
> they are trying to replace is something else. And this won't help on KNI
> related problems.
> 
> Thanks,
> ferruh
> 

Why not re-submit patches but put in lib/librte_eal/staging or similar path
and make sure that it does not get build by normal build process.