From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] recipes for RPM packages Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 08:53:02 +0200 Message-ID: <127196916.hNrg7ZGWug@xps13> References: <1398818805-18834-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> <2579041.G0rVZgHGXT@xps13> <20140430152217.GA13937@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: Neil Horman Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140430152217.GA13937-bi+AKbBUZKY6gyzm1THtWbp2dZbC/Bob@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" 2014-04-30 11:22, Neil Horman: > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 01:09:38PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > The 4 spec files are used to build 4 different git trees with their own > > versioning: > > http://dpdk.org/browse > > > > So I think it's saner to keep them in their repository. [...] > > Yeah, if they're separate git trees, they can be separate specs. That said > though, it strongly begs the question as to why you are keeping open source > pmds outside of the dpdk library? That really doesn't make much sense, > whats preventing that integration (followed by the integration of the spec > files)? These extensions have their own versioning. They include PMD but also kernel modules (memnic and vmxnet3-usermap). In case of memnic, the kernel module is an alternative to DPDK PMD. So there is no good reason to integrate it in DPDK. And it's better to host both drivers together in order to keep coherency and share some resources. Extensions can also be a place to host some test applications related to its PMD. If you see DPDK as a framework, it's really logical to have repositories hosting some projects which are (partly) using the framework. -- Thomas