From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: Why nothing since 1.8.0? Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:16:45 +0100 Message-ID: <1649041.nrbsJgUZ3t@xps13> References: <20150114122352.63ef79eb@urahara> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA54C9978E@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> <20150116014626.GA14696@mhcomputing.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: Matthew Hall Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150116014626.GA14696-Hv3ogNYU3JfZZajBQzqCxQ@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" 2015-01-15 17:46, Matthew Hall: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 09:55:00PM +0000, O'driscoll, Tim wrote: > > As you said, there's a balance to be struck, and too many subtrees may > > become unmanageable. With respect to your concern about developers having to > > potentially develop patches against multiple subtrees, this has never been > > raised as a concern by any of our development team. Is there any historical > > data on the number of changes that would fall into this category so we can > > see if it's a real problem or not? > > Hi Tim, > > What happens when a core API like rte_mbuf gets some changes, and you have to > update the PMD's to fit? > > Do I have to make 10-20 odd random patches to separate PMD maintainers instead > of one set of patches to the PMD subtree? Then the patchset is core-wide and must be managed in the main tree. > To me it doesn't sound very nice for the guys maintaining the core. Given most > of the changes seem to be mbuf or eal this seems like a scaling issue to me. In previous release, there were a lot of changes related to i40e. And we expect to have the same level of activity for fm10k. > But maybe I misunderstood the process. No problem, we are starting experiencing this model and will write some guidelines. -- Thomas