Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] nfp: add doc about supported features

[Alejandro Lucero <alejandro.lucero@netronome.com>]

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
wrote:

> On 12/16/2016 5:29 PM, Alejandro Lucero wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > One question about this patch. I will send another patch soon which will
> > require to modify the file created by this patch. So, should I use the
> > dpdk-next for sending the new patch or the dpdk stable branch?
>
> I guess by "dpdk stable branch" you mean dpdk main repo, because we also
> have stable sub-tree which is something else.
>
>
Yes. That's what I meant.


> > I
> > understand that using the latter will imply some integration later, but
> > I really do not know if I should facilitate things using dpdk-next in
> > this case.
>
> If the patch is driver patch, please send to the next-net sub-tree, as a
> PMD maintainer, I expect majority of your patches should target next-net.
>
>
OK


> If patch just touches the documentation of the driver, you can send it
> to the main tree, but both next-net sub-tree and main tree are OK since
> PMD documentation is not heavily modified, integration will be (mostly)
> easy.
>
> Specific to the this document (feature.ini), since this is directly
> correlated with PMD source code, to update this file, you need to update
> the source code. And it is better to update this document in next-net as
> part of the patchset that updates the PMD code.
>
>
Fine.


> >
> > By the way, it is not just about this specific patch, because I have
> > other almost ready which I want to push before the 16.02 deadline.
>
> Please push 17.02 patches as soon as possible, although there is
> technically still some time for the integration deadline, practically
> there is less because of holidays in between ...
>
>
I'm working on this. I have been busy doing other more priority things but
this is now top priority for me.

Thanks


> >
> >
> <...>
>