From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B99B48AEF; Wed, 12 Nov 2025 16:03:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5550140697; Wed, 12 Nov 2025 16:03:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAADC402B0 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2025 16:03:37 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1762959817; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type; bh=jr6AYc7XUiLairwh9ZSDz2Nxtsbp256mSuTvtdyAniE=; b=WEk8c8R6u+uCyH/mYA/07lUOH+b0EWsahu8uTumiSFCPeDqXvUA7uJ1+TUT7KACykxiLWn OS74618Tn/9tdpxGOXyA5xs/NouOr+IKdX6idG+aCN2lydEpMQ3bMXMBpryFuMDeYe/cvW eEjYjuTx8WAenXT0Dlq+eS1smOFZJCY= Received: from mx-prod-mc-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-524-q51Gj4pHMXOoWwYwmRfwUw-1; Wed, 12 Nov 2025 10:03:35 -0500 X-MC-Unique: q51Gj4pHMXOoWwYwmRfwUw-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: q51Gj4pHMXOoWwYwmRfwUw_1762959814 Received: from mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.93]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB5E4196E0BF for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2025 15:03:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from RHTRH0061144 (unknown [10.22.88.13]) by mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01B3E18009A7 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2025 15:03:22 +0000 (UTC) From: Aaron Conole To: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Meeting Minutes, 2025-10-15 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 10:03:21 -0500 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.93 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: jZz4rlf0MkeY8_r6CYySJ-ruL9DalL2kRopTs2phmH8_1762959814 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Attendees: 8/11 TB * Aaron Conole * Bruce Richardson * Hemant Agrawal * Jerin Kollanukkaran * Thomas Monjalon * Maxime Coquelin * Kevin Traynor * Morten Brorup NOTE: The Technical Board meetings take place every second Wednesday at 3 pm UTC on https://zoom-lfx.platform.linuxfoundation.org/meeting/96459488340?password=d808f1f6-0a28-4165-929e-5a5bcae7efeb Meetings are public, and DPDK community members are welcome to attend. Agenda and minutes can be found at http://core.dpdk.org/techboard/minutes The next meeting will happen on October 29 The next chair will be Hemant Agrawal Topics SOW Retrospective and priorities * Priority is urgent due to Governing Board deadlines for budget decisions * Patrick sent out a retrospective for the techboard review * Aaron to kick off the tasks spreadsheet * Morten asks about running DTS on the "single-server topology" * Patrick replies this is currently working with some effort, after the BoF discussion at DPDK Summit Prague * Paul and Patrick will look into updating the documentation * Maybe add this to the SOW for any additional documentation and development work to support it properly. * How to read the retrospective? * Patrick to re-review the retrospective to make sure things are highlighted appropriately. Highlighted items are still WIP or not planned to complete. LTS Maintainer * Should we advertise that we are seeking for someone to do this work on the mailing list publicly? * There could be someone who is active in the community but isn't aware that LTS maintainer-ship needs help. * Kevin will send something to the mailing list to try and seek candidates. FAST_FREE vs multi-seg MBUF * 3 options being discussed to resolve the incompatibility between fast-free vs. multi-segment mbuf flags * Morten proposes that we roll back the mutual exclusivity enforcement patch. This will restore the older behavior, and allow tests to run properly, given that tests are setting these flags. * Better to roll back the patch because it isn't any worse that things were previously. * Need to make a decision before RC-1, and changing this is an API/ABI semantic difference. * Still haven't reached conclusion as what FAST_FREE means, which makes it difficult to evaluate the correctness of exclusion. * VOTE to rollback: PASS - 8 votes for rolling back and postponing further discussion. How to encourage more reviews on Dev ML * Thomas notes that Tim O'Driscoll, Ben Thomas, and Nathan are also be engaged. * Idea from Ben - maybe having 'credly' badges. * Maybe use AI Bot to flag reviews * Morten is looking for more design and high-level reviews * Thomas says solution is to motivate the senior developers to do more reviews. * Morten has a dev ML, and then manually moves the patches he wants to review into a different folder. * Question: How to flag important series? * Maybe an automatic way to flag certain areas of the code as high priority? * Dashboard may not motivate, but maybe it can help to organize the work * Maybe some way of prioritizing patches in patchwork - have a column and we can sort on this. * This helps with the finding what to review part, but doesn't help with motivation. * New column may be helpful anyway * who can work on the column? Thomas will reach out to Ali * Maybe metrics for review? * Difficult to get metrics, but they can be motivational * Challenge: Keeping the current reviewers motivated, and motivating the future reviewers. AI Review requirements * Apply the series to the correct branches to eliminate some of the noise. * So far, only David seems to be reviewing * Should have a different name. 'github-post' is not good enough, maybe 'AI-review' will get more attention. Aaron will make that change. * Preference would be to have a link directly. Could be done as a new tag. * Aaron to change the github-post label, and start discussions about a new tag that will do a direct link on the CI mailing list. * For the future, 'How useful is this? Should we investigate other AI review tools?'