* [dpdk-dev] Vendor specific sub-trees under next-net @ 2017-10-12 23:29 Ferruh Yigit 2017-10-12 23:31 ` Ferruh Yigit 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Ferruh Yigit @ 2017-10-12 23:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: DPDK, Zhang, Helin, Thomas Monjalon, Olga Shern, Jerin Jacob, Hemant Agrawal, Gaetan Rivet, Pascal Mazon Cc: Zhu, Heqing, John McNamara, Vincent JARDIN Hi Thomas, et al Previously it has been mentioned [1] to have vendor specific driver trees under next-net. And recently Mellanox agreed to have a Mellanox tree [2]. Intel also agrees to have next-net-intel, and Helin will be maintaining it, thanks to Helin for volunteering. Other vendors with multiple drivers are Cavium, 6wind and NXP. - Is there a name for Mellanox maintainer? - What do other vendors, mentioned above, thinks about creating their own sub-tree? - Are the vendor sub-trees and their maintainers need to be approved by tech-board? And what I understand from vendor specific sub-trees is, instead of driver patches going into next-net directly, they will go into vendor tree and next-net will pull from them. This will distribute the maintenance work among the vendors, also will give more control to vendors on their patches. Thanks, ferruh [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-September/075094.html [2] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-October/078277.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] Vendor specific sub-trees under next-net 2017-10-12 23:29 [dpdk-dev] Vendor specific sub-trees under next-net Ferruh Yigit @ 2017-10-12 23:31 ` Ferruh Yigit 2017-10-12 23:51 ` Thomas Monjalon 2017-10-15 5:28 ` Shahaf Shuler 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Ferruh Yigit @ 2017-10-12 23:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: DPDK, Zhang, Helin, Thomas Monjalon, Olga Shern, Jerin Jacob, Hemant Agrawal, Gaetan Rivet, Pascal Mazon Cc: Zhu, Heqing, John McNamara, Vincent JARDIN On 10/13/2017 12:29 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > Hi Thomas, et al > > Previously it has been mentioned [1] to have vendor specific driver > trees under next-net. > > And recently Mellanox agreed to have a Mellanox tree [2]. > > Intel also agrees to have next-net-intel, and Helin will be maintaining > it, thanks to Helin for volunteering. > > Other vendors with multiple drivers are Cavium, 6wind and NXP. > > > - Is there a name for Mellanox maintainer? > > - What do other vendors, mentioned above, thinks about creating their > own sub-tree? > > - Are the vendor sub-trees and their maintainers need to be approved by > tech-board? > > > And what I understand from vendor specific sub-trees is, instead of > driver patches going into next-net directly, they will go into vendor > tree and next-net will pull from them. > > This will distribute the maintenance work among the vendors, also will > give more control to vendors on their patches. > > > Thanks, > ferruh > > > [1] > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-September/075094.html > > [2] > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-October/078277.html > Using correct mail address for Thomas. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] Vendor specific sub-trees under next-net 2017-10-12 23:31 ` Ferruh Yigit @ 2017-10-12 23:51 ` Thomas Monjalon 2017-10-13 5:22 ` Hemant Agrawal 2017-10-15 5:28 ` Shahaf Shuler 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Thomas Monjalon @ 2017-10-12 23:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: DPDK, Zhang, Helin, Olga Shern, Jerin Jacob, Hemant Agrawal, Gaetan Rivet, Pascal Mazon, Zhu, Heqing, John McNamara, Vincent JARDIN, shahafs 13/10/2017 01:31, Ferruh Yigit: > Hi Thomas, et al > > Previously it has been mentioned [1] to have vendor specific driver > trees under next-net. > > And recently Mellanox agreed to have a Mellanox tree [2]. > > Intel also agrees to have next-net-intel, and Helin will be maintaining > it, thanks to Helin for volunteering. Good news, thanks > Other vendors with multiple drivers are Cavium, 6wind and NXP. > > - Is there a name for Mellanox maintainer? > > - What do other vendors, mentioned above, thinks about creating their > own sub-tree? > > - Are the vendor sub-trees and their maintainers need to be approved by > tech-board? Yes every dpdk.org git trees must be approved by the techboard. The next meeting is tomorrow. > And what I understand from vendor specific sub-trees is, instead of > driver patches going into next-net directly, they will go into vendor > tree and next-net will pull from them. Yes we are creating a new git tree layer below next-net. > This will distribute the maintenance work among the vendors, also will > give more control to vendors on their patches. It is very good to distribute workload. In 17.11-rc1, there were more than 500 patches managed in next-net. Thanks Ferruh > Thanks, > ferruh > > > [1] > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-September/075094.html > > [2] > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-October/078277.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] Vendor specific sub-trees under next-net 2017-10-12 23:51 ` Thomas Monjalon @ 2017-10-13 5:22 ` Hemant Agrawal 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Hemant Agrawal @ 2017-10-13 5:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Monjalon, Ferruh Yigit Cc: DPDK, Zhang, Helin, Olga Shern, Jerin Jacob, Gaetan Rivet, Pascal Mazon, Zhu, Heqing, John McNamara, Vincent JARDIN, shahafs Hi Ferruh, On 10/13/2017 5:21 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 13/10/2017 01:31, Ferruh Yigit: >> Hi Thomas, et al >> >> Previously it has been mentioned [1] to have vendor specific driver >> trees under next-net. >> >> And recently Mellanox agreed to have a Mellanox tree [2]. >> >> Intel also agrees to have next-net-intel, and Helin will be maintaining >> it, thanks to Helin for volunteering. > > Good news, thanks > >> Other vendors with multiple drivers are Cavium, 6wind and NXP. >> >> - Is there a name for Mellanox maintainer? >> >> - What do other vendors, mentioned above, thinks about creating their >> own sub-tree? >> >> - Are the vendor sub-trees and their maintainers need to be approved by >> tech-board? > > Yes every dpdk.org git trees must be approved by the techboard. > The next meeting is tomorrow. > >> And what I understand from vendor specific sub-trees is, instead of >> driver patches going into next-net directly, they will go into vendor >> tree and next-net will pull from them. I am trying to understand the purpose for it. Typically vendors maintain their own tree and send the patches up-stream post internal reviews only. - it is because different groups within a vendor company are sending patches and you want one maintainer to confirm/review before they come to next-net? - Or, too many patch series dependencies between the vendor patches. It is getting difficult to manage. Consider the scenerio, developer 'A' sent patches for NXP. I as maintainer of NXP, allowed them in next-net-NXP. But when I raised pull request to next-net - you have comments. Now I have to follow up with developer 'A' as from patchwork point of view, his patches are accepted and merged. Also, it may impact the quality of review, if all pull requests are raised around RC1 time. Regards, Hemant > > Yes we are creating a new git tree layer below next-net. > >> This will distribute the maintenance work among the vendors, also will >> give more control to vendors on their patches. > > It is very good to distribute workload. > In 17.11-rc1, there were more than 500 patches managed in next-net. > Thanks Ferruh > >> Thanks, >> ferruh >> >> >> [1] >> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-September/075094.html >> >> [2] >> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-October/078277.html > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] Vendor specific sub-trees under next-net 2017-10-12 23:31 ` Ferruh Yigit 2017-10-12 23:51 ` Thomas Monjalon @ 2017-10-15 5:28 ` Shahaf Shuler 2017-10-16 4:49 ` Ferruh Yigit 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Shahaf Shuler @ 2017-10-15 5:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ferruh Yigit, DPDK, Zhang, Helin, Thomas Monjalon, Olga Shern, Jerin Jacob, Hemant Agrawal, Gaetan Rivet, Pascal Mazon Cc: Zhu, Heqing, John McNamara, Vincent JARDIN Friday, October 13, 2017 2:31 AM, Ferruh Yigit: > On 10/13/2017 12:29 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > > Hi Thomas, et al > > > > Previously it has been mentioned [1] to have vendor specific driver > > trees under next-net. > > > > And recently Mellanox agreed to have a Mellanox tree [2]. > > > > Intel also agrees to have next-net-intel, and Helin will be > > maintaining it, thanks to Helin for volunteering. > > > > Other vendors with multiple drivers are Cavium, 6wind and NXP. > > > > > > - Is there a name for Mellanox maintainer? I will be the maintainer of Mellanox tree. > > > > - What do other vendors, mentioned above, thinks about creating their > > own sub-tree? > > > > - Are the vendor sub-trees and their maintainers need to be approved > > by tech-board? > > > > > > And what I understand from vendor specific sub-trees is, instead of > > driver patches going into next-net directly, they will go into vendor > > tree and next-net will pull from them. We need to define this more carefully. Sometimes a patchset has driver patches but also some patches for ethdev and testpmd/example. What if other vendor would like to use those patches? How frequent will be the merging between the vendor-specific tree and next-net? Am not saying there is an issue here, just need to define the rules. > > > > This will distribute the maintenance work among the vendors, also will > > give more control to vendors on their patches. > > > > > > Thanks, > > ferruh > > > > > > [1] > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdpd > k > > .org%2Fml%2Farchives%2Fdev%2F2017- > September%2F075094.html&data=02%7C01 > > > %7Cshahafs%40mellanox.com%7Cb9cdfab0a0544608bd4708d511c9597f%7Ca > 652971 > > > c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C636434478859873082&sdata=A15 > iL0two > > 9nLROmTBRUf54xCZxn%2BwLCAuZNLLyNnTqE%3D&reserved=0 > > > > [2] > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdpd > k > > .org%2Fml%2Farchives%2Fdev%2F2017- > October%2F078277.html&data=02%7C01%7 > > > Cshahafs%40mellanox.com%7Cb9cdfab0a0544608bd4708d511c9597f%7Ca652 > 971c7 > > > d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C636434478859873082&sdata=%2B9 > tWsEXRf > > PDZJfPqYrcRCuYmRCB3Ix7I%2FzjGwHZNbSI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > Using correct mail address for Thomas. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] Vendor specific sub-trees under next-net 2017-10-15 5:28 ` Shahaf Shuler @ 2017-10-16 4:49 ` Ferruh Yigit 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Ferruh Yigit @ 2017-10-16 4:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shahaf Shuler, DPDK, Zhang, Helin, Thomas Monjalon, Olga Shern, Jerin Jacob, Hemant Agrawal, Gaetan Rivet, Pascal Mazon Cc: Zhu, Heqing, John McNamara, Vincent JARDIN On 10/15/2017 6:28 AM, Shahaf Shuler wrote: > Friday, October 13, 2017 2:31 AM, Ferruh Yigit: >> On 10/13/2017 12:29 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: >>> Hi Thomas, et al >>> >>> Previously it has been mentioned [1] to have vendor specific driver >>> trees under next-net. >>> >>> And recently Mellanox agreed to have a Mellanox tree [2]. >>> >>> Intel also agrees to have next-net-intel, and Helin will be >>> maintaining it, thanks to Helin for volunteering. >>> >>> Other vendors with multiple drivers are Cavium, 6wind and NXP. >>> >>> >>> - Is there a name for Mellanox maintainer? > > I will be the maintainer of Mellanox tree. > >>> >>> - What do other vendors, mentioned above, thinks about creating their >>> own sub-tree? >>> >>> - Are the vendor sub-trees and their maintainers need to be approved >>> by tech-board? >>> >>> >>> And what I understand from vendor specific sub-trees is, instead of >>> driver patches going into next-net directly, they will go into vendor >>> tree and next-net will pull from them. > > We need to define this more carefully. > Sometimes a patchset has driver patches but also some patches for ethdev and testpmd/example. > > What if other vendor would like to use those patches? > How frequent will be the merging between the vendor-specific tree and next-net? I am for a more frequent merge, like a weekly one, we can define a branch for merge, what ever you put into there can be merged weekly. Frequent merge is good for sync, as you mentioned, also good for giving time to vendor sub-trees for change if change requested before merging into next-net, as Hemant mentioned. And we can discuss and change it according if it is working fine or not. Thanks, ferruh > > Am not saying there is an issue here, just need to define the rules. > >>> >>> This will distribute the maintenance work among the vendors, also will >>> give more control to vendors on their patches. >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> ferruh >>> >>> >>> [1] >>> >> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdpd >> k >>> .org%2Fml%2Farchives%2Fdev%2F2017- >> September%2F075094.html&data=02%7C01 >>> >> %7Cshahafs%40mellanox.com%7Cb9cdfab0a0544608bd4708d511c9597f%7Ca >> 652971 >>> >> c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C636434478859873082&sdata=A15 >> iL0two >>> 9nLROmTBRUf54xCZxn%2BwLCAuZNLLyNnTqE%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> [2] >>> >> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdpd >> k >>> .org%2Fml%2Farchives%2Fdev%2F2017- >> October%2F078277.html&data=02%7C01%7 >>> >> Cshahafs%40mellanox.com%7Cb9cdfab0a0544608bd4708d511c9597f%7Ca652 >> 971c7 >>> >> d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f461b%7C0%7C0%7C636434478859873082&sdata=%2B9 >> tWsEXRf >>> PDZJfPqYrcRCuYmRCB3Ix7I%2FzjGwHZNbSI%3D&reserved=0 >>> >> >> Using correct mail address for Thomas. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-10-16 4:49 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2017-10-12 23:29 [dpdk-dev] Vendor specific sub-trees under next-net Ferruh Yigit 2017-10-12 23:31 ` Ferruh Yigit 2017-10-12 23:51 ` Thomas Monjalon 2017-10-13 5:22 ` Hemant Agrawal 2017-10-15 5:28 ` Shahaf Shuler 2017-10-16 4:49 ` Ferruh Yigit
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).