From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 771E11396 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 18:34:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Sep 2017 09:34:07 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,383,1500966000"; d="scan'208";a="150472182" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.57]) ([10.237.220.57]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Sep 2017 09:34:06 -0700 To: Thomas Monjalon , Bruce Richardson Cc: stephen@networkplumber.org, dev@dpdk.org References: <2737351.pD9poAUtZC@xps> <20170912083207.GC40060@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <1536607.mpdSPqACls@xps> From: Ferruh Yigit Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 17:34:05 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1536607.mpdSPqACls@xps> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] git trees organization 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: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 16:34:08 -0000 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! >