DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Cyril Chemparathy <cchemparathy@tilera.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>, <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] next releases
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:04:37 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53FE0FA5.8020900@tilera.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1598074.SMl35i2x6y@xps13>

Hi Thomas,

On 8/25/2014 10:15 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I am back from holidays; thanks for all the
> patches/reviews/comments done during last weeks.
>
> I'd like to have a version 1.7.1, ideally at the end of this week.
>
> For the coming days,
>     - first priority is to integrate bug fixes
>     - some changes which do not imply API could be part of 1.7.1
>     - please, do not send more features until 1.8.0-rc1
>     - features that have been been *properly* reviewed or acked before
>       end of august will be integrated in 1.8.0-rc1
>     - all pending features which do not have any review will be postponed
>       after 1.8.0-rc1
>     - then rc2 will integrate new features if *properly* reviewed at that time
>
> I'd like to have some cleanups in version 1.8. Examples:
>     - get rid of doxygen warnings
>     - check if compile time options can be moved to run time
>     - rename some options (CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_*_PMD -> CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_PMD_*)
>     - merge common code between linux and bsd implementions
>     - check secondary process rights
>     - remove drivers lists from code for easy integration of new drivers
>     - use rte_eth_dev_atomic_read_link_status in drivers
>     - use librte_cfgfile instead of examples/qos_sched
>     - add sysfs functions as eal services
>     - replace printf calls by rte functions
>     - use new assert macros for unit tests
>     - remove kni traces from bsd
>     - remove bare metal traces
>     - compress test_lpm*_routes.h

Any thoughts on consolidating/cleaning up the timer interfaces?

Usage across rte_rdtsc(), rte_get_tsc_cycles(), and 
rte_get_timer_cycles() could use some rationalization, I think.

It looks like most code should use rte_get_timer_cycles() and generally 
honor user specified timer source selection.  The relatively few places 
that have a good cause to pin down on TSC should probably use 
rte_get_tsc_cycles() instead of rde_rdtsc().  On the other hand, if 
rte_rdtsc() is meant for direct use, why do we need the 
rte_get_tsc_cycles() wrapper?

Also, I'm not quite clear on the intended usage of rte_rdtsc_precise().  
I can't find uses of this function on master, and it is not quite clear 
to me if the intent is to replace rte_rdtsc() in some (or all?) places 
in the code.  Any insights on this?

Thanks
-- Cyril.

  reply	other threads:[~2014-08-27 16:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-08-25 17:15 Thomas Monjalon
2014-08-27 17:04 ` Cyril Chemparathy [this message]
2014-08-28  8:41   ` Richardson, Bruce
2014-08-28  9:06     ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-08-28  9:22       ` Richardson, Bruce

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=53FE0FA5.8020900@tilera.com \
    --to=cchemparathy@tilera.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).