Re: [dpdk-dev] git trees organization

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On 9/12/2017 9:48 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 12/09/2017 10:32, Bruce Richardson:
>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:03:30AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> [...]
>>> At the same time, we can think how to add more git sub-trees:
>>
>> In principle, I'm in favour, but I think that the subtrees of the master
>> tree should be at a fairly coarse granularity, and not be too many of
>> them. The more subtrees, the more likely we are to have issues with
>> patchsets needing to be split across trees, or having to take bits from
>> multiple trees in order to test if everything is working.
>>
>>> Should we create next-net-intel for Intel networking drivers?
>>
>> Given the number and size of intel drivers, this seems reasonable to
>> start as a second-level subtree.
> 
> OK, we need the name of a volunteer :)

+1 to next-net-intel

Why not have next-net-mlx, next-net-cavium etc too.. This can reduce
load for next-net, which can be shifted to main repo.

> 
>>> Any volunteer?
>>>
>>> Should we create next-bus for bus API and drivers?
>>> Stephen Hemminger is working on a new bus.
>>> Would you be interested by taking the responsibility of this git tree?
>>
>> Is this something that is going to need ongoing work and maintenance, or
>> just something that would be needed while the current rework of
>> introducing bus types is being done? If the former, a tree makes sense,
>> but not if it's the latter case.
> 
> We are going to have many bus drivers (pci, vdev, fslmc, vmbus).
> If we look only at PCI, there are always some new patches to improve
> or fix things. So I think it is reasonnable to imagine that we will
> have some real activity with all bus drivers.
> 
>>> Should we create next-mem for malloc/mempool?
>>>
>> Core libs tree, encompassing eal, mempool and 1 or 2 others? I don't
>> think memory should have its own tree initially.
>>
>>> Should we take ethdev patches into next-net?
>>
>> Definitely! I think not doing so was a bit of a mistake when net tree
>> was spun off.
> 
> Sure it was a mistake, but it was assumed because net drivers is already
> a big work. I hope we can add it now while moving Intel drivers to
> a second level sub-tree.

+1

> 
>>> Other suggestions?
>>
>> Similar to above, cryptodev should be in crypto tree, eventdev in event
>> tree etc.
> 
> It is already the case. No change to do here :)
> 
>> Other than that, all I can say is "let's do it!". We have quite a
>> backlog to get through for 17.11, so anything that moves things along
>> faster is to be welcomed.
> 
> Yes!
>