Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 0/4] examples: add performance-thread

["Glynn, Michael J" <michael.j.glynn@intel.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Betts, Ian 
Sent: Saturday, December 5, 2015 12:07 PM
To: Thomas Monjalon; Stephen Hemminger
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; O'Driscoll, Tim; Richardson, Bruce; Glynn, Michael J
Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 0/4] examples: add performance-thread


-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2015 6:34 PM
To: Stephen Hemminger
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Betts, Ian
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 0/4] examples: add performance-thread

> Intel may have some milestone to get it into DPDK 2.2 but really this 
> seems too late...

>>>Yes, sure it is too late to have enough discussions in 2.2 timeframe
>Just to understand what we mean by too late...
>The original RFC was issued on 2nd September.
>Thus there have been some three months available for discussion, and for people to raise any questions or concerns.
>The first patch was available on 30th September, and a number of subsequent patch versions have been issued, meaning the code has been available for review for two month
>As mentioned in the reply to Stephen, there has been no adverse feedback during this period.
>/Ian

Hi Thomas/Stephen

I agree with Ian, how much time is expected for a discussion to happen? 

As Ian stated, the feature was stated in our 2.2 planned feature list, we created a RFC over 3 months ago, and there's been code available for review for over 2 months now! (not to mention several version updates, docs, etc.). 
Given this, I believe that there has been ample time for the community to review and provide feedback rather than waiting until the eve of RC3 and then requesting more time. 

In addition, by making it a sample application first people can test it, see if it's useful, and further enhance it. Based on usefulness and feedback, we can then decide whether to make it a DPDK library in a future release, make it a separate library somewhere else, or do nothing further on it

For these reasons, I believe it should be merged into RC3

Regards
Mike