From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E60197CBE for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 18:56:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Jun 2017 09:56:13 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,287,1496127600"; d="scan'208";a="103234694" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.91]) ([10.237.220.91]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2017 09:56:02 -0700 From: Ferruh Yigit To: Bruce Richardson Cc: dev@dpdk.org, anatoly.burakov@intel.com References: <20170526165228.96919-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <20170621110651.75299-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <20170626113909.GD102672@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <58c4e676-a9c6-d5d0-c462-f4f96f7182cb@intel.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 17:56:01 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <58c4e676-a9c6-d5d0-c462-f4f96f7182cb@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 0/4] Userspace Network Control Interface (UNCI) 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: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 16:56:14 -0000 On 6/29/2017 5:13 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: <...> >> 3. From a patchset split point of view, could this set be split up to be >> a bit more granular. There are a lot of functions to be performed on >> NICs called out in the code, e.g. start/stop, get stats, etc. etc. To >> make review easier, should we initially add the kernel module and >> userspace parts with just one function supported, and then add in each >> additional function in a new patchset, so that we can clearly see the >> code for each function isolated from the rest. This is the approach - >> adding feature by feature - that is recommended for NIC drivers, and it >> might make sense here too. > > Let me try to split patches more. Done, sent v9, patchset split into more patches. > >> >> Otherwise, great work. I think this is a huge improvement in usability >> for DPDK, especially if we add in future support for controlling DPDK >> interfaces in a (not interfering with the app) safe manner too. >> >> /Bruce >> >