From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC2345587 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 15:03:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Apr 2017 06:03:24 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,221,1488873600"; d="scan'208";a="91694964" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.59]) ([10.237.220.59]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Apr 2017 06:03:23 -0700 To: Thomas Monjalon , Olivier MATZ Cc: dev@dpdk.org References: <1488966121-22853-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <4815628.Qayg3alc5T@xps> <20170419142820.5902a513@glumotte.dev.6wind.com> <2313944.lXlCutk7ET@xps> From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: <9e68c252-4ce0-18f5-f054-394c0e067054@intel.com> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:03:23 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2313944.lXlCutk7ET@xps> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/8] mbuf: structure reorganization 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, 19 Apr 2017 13:03:26 -0000 On 4/19/2017 1:56 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 19/04/2017 14:28, Olivier MATZ: >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:39:01 +0200, Thomas Monjalon > wrote: >>> 18/04/2017 15:04, Olivier MATZ: >>>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 14:10:33 +0100, Ferruh Yigit >>>> >>> >>> wrote: >>>>>> 2017-04-04 18:27, Olivier Matz: >>>>>>> Once this patchset is pushed, the Rx path of drivers could be >>>>>>> optimized >>>>>>> a bit, by removing writes to m->next, m->nb_segs and m->refcnt. The >>>>>>> patch 4/8 gives an idea of what could be done. >>>>> >>>>> Hi Olivier, >>>>> >>>>> Some driver patches already received for this update, but not all yet. >>>>> >>>>> Can you please describe what changes are required in PMDs after this >>>>> patch? And what will be effect of doing changes or not? >>>> >>>> Yes, I will do it. >>>> >>>>> Later we can circulate this information through the PMD maintainers to >>>>> be sure proper updates done. >>>> >>>> That would be good. >>>> >>>> Do you know what will be the procedure to inform the PMD maintainers? >>>> Is there a specific mailing list? >>> >>> We should explain the required changes on dev@dpdk.org as it can be >>> interesting for a lot of people (not only current maintainers). >> >> I agree here. >> >>> Then we just have to make sure that the PMDs are updated accordingly >>> in a good timeframe (1 or 2 releases). >>> If we feel someone miss an important message, we can ping him directly, >>> without dev@dpdk.org cc'ed to make sure it pops up in his inbox. >>> The other communication channel to ping people is IRC freenode #dpdk. >> >> Who is the "we"? In that particular case, is it my job? >> Shouldn't we notify the PMD maintainers more precisely? > > We as a community :) > I think Ferruh will lead the follow-up of this rework, > as next-net maintainer. I can trace net PMDs. Lets start in dev mail list and make sure what a PMD maintainer should do is clear, we can wait for a release for updates, later I can ping missing ones individually, what do you think?