From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C68625E5; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:55:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from lfbn-lil-1-110-231.w90-45.abo.wanadoo.fr ([90.45.197.231] helo=droids-corp.org) by mail.droids-corp.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eP2vC-0005Ti-OK; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:01:48 +0100 Received: by droids-corp.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:55:21 +0100 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:55:21 +0100 From: Olivier MATZ To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: "Mcnamara, John" , Thomas Monjalon , "dev@dpdk.org" , "techboard@dpdk.org" Message-ID: <20171213085520.xoj3jek2u5bo3fuy@platinum> References: <20171121195905.66410-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <20171212155430.nqt27wwy4lgsgpuk@platinum> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] [PATCH] doc: update contribution guideline for dependent work 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: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 08:55:32 -0000 On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 10:57:48AM -0800, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 12/12/2017 7:54 AM, Olivier MATZ wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 02:26:34PM +0000, Mcnamara, John wrote: > >> From: Yigit, Ferruh > >>> Changing some part of the libraries but not updating all dependent code > >>> cause maintenance problems. > >>> > >>> ... > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit > >>> > >> > >> > >> integration testing. > >>> > >>> +* If changes effect other parts of the project, update all those parts as > >>> well unless updating requires special knowledge. > > > > I feel that "requiring special knowledge" is a bit blury. > > Yes it is, but hard to define where to put the line. My point is if author has > enough knowledge to go and update dependent part, please do so. > > > Shouldn't we add some > > examples? Typically, I'm thinking about changes in ethdev that imply updating > > the PMDs. Any opinion for this use case? > > Overall many libraries to PMDs fit into this. eal/mbuf/ethdev -> PMD changes. > > I think, the dynamic logging update in the other libraries and PMDs should be > done with the original patch, adding dynamic logging to any library doesn't > require library specific information, but agree this is more work. Being the author of this patchset, I can give my feeling in this particular case. That's right adding dynamic logging to all libraries may not require to know the specifics or the library. I did these changes to help me while debugging the i40e driver. Once done, it was worth doing clean EAL upstreamable patches to lay the foundations for a generic dynamic logging system in DPDK. If I had to do the work for all the libraries, I would not have done it, because it was really out of scope of my task. So the choice was between having nothing, or having something which is not much used at first, but can be more widely adopted over time. That said, I understand that the problem with the second approach is to stay for too long in a situation where the old system is used. > For new ethdev offload method, I believe it fits into more gray area, it may be > possible to update PMDs to use new offloading method but some part PMDs can be > challenging. > > Converting flow director filtering to the rte_flow filtering is something I > believe fair to expect from PMD owner instead of rte_flow author. Yes, agree for these 2 examples.