From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] libeventdev API and northbound implementation Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 10:40:50 +0100 Message-ID: <16834486.NTSXs6S7QZ@xps13> References: <1479447902-3700-1-git-send-email-jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com> <20161118160428.GA123692@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <20161118192715.GA8674@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, harry.van.haaren@intel.com, hemant.agrawal@nxp.com, gage.eads@intel.com To: Jerin Jacob , Bruce Richardson Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com (mail-wm0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79D482BAC for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 10:40:52 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f48.google.com with SMTP id c184so19758747wmd.0 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 01:40:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20161118192715.GA8674@localhost.localdomain> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2016-11-19 00:57, Jerin Jacob: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 04:04:29PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 03:25:18PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:14:58AM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > Possible next steps: > > > > 1) Review this patch set > > > > 2) Integrate Intel's SW driver[http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/17049/] > > > > 3) Review proposed examples/eventdev_pipeline application[http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/17053/] > > > > 4) Review proposed functional tests[http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/17051/] > > > > 5) Cavium's HW based eventdev driver > > > > > > > > I am planning to work on (3),(4) and (5) > > > > > > > Thanks Jerin, > > > > > > we'll review and get back to you with any comments or feedback (1), and > > > obviously start working on item (2) also! :-) > > > > > > I'm also wonder whether we should have a staging tree for this work to > > > make interaction between us easier. Although this may not be > > > finalised enough for 17.02 release, do you think having an > > > dpdk-eventdev-next tree would be a help? My thinking is that once we get > > > the eventdev library itself in reasonable shape following our review, we > > > could commit that and make any changes thereafter as new patches, rather > > > than constantly respinning the same set. It also gives us a clean git > > > tree to base the respective driver implementations on from our two sides. > > > > > > Thomas, any thoughts here on your end - or from anyone else? > > I was thinking more or less along the same lines. To avoid re-spinning the > same set, it is better to have libeventdev library mark as EXPERIMENTAL > and commit it somewhere on dpdk-eventdev-next or main tree > > I think, EXPERIMENTAL status can be changed only when > - At least two event drivers available > - Functional test applications fine with at least two drivers > - Portable example application to showcase the features of the library > - eventdev integration with another dpdk subsystem such as ethdev Are you asking for a temporary tree? If yes, please tell its name and its committers, it will be done.