From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] slow data path communication between
	DPDK port and Linux
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:15:24 +0100
Message-ID: <1909241.8RRZd4veSo@xps13>
References: <1455858349-14639-1-git-send-email-ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
 <11855450.AeS7qhTG6k@xps13> <56E975DA.8030300@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org,
 David Marchand <david.marchand@6wind.com>, Helin Zhang <helin.zhang@intel.com>
To: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com (mail-wm0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D39682BB4
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:16:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f48.google.com with SMTP id l68so195028755wml.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 08:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <56E975DA.8030300@redhat.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2016-03-16 17:03, Panu Matilainen:
> On 03/16/2016 03:58 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2016-03-16 15:15, Panu Matilainen:
> >> What I really would like to see is a clear policy regarding kernel
> >> modules in DPDK. I certainly am in no position to dictate one, and
> >> that's why I've been asking questions and throwing around crazy (or not)
> >> ideas around the topic.
> >
> > I think the consensus is to avoid new kernel module,
> > but allow them in a staging directory while being discussed upstream.
> 
> To me the more interesting question is: what happens after that?
> As in, if upstream says no, does it mean axe from dpdk, no ifs and buts? 
> If accepted upstream, does a version of the module still live within 
> dpdk codebase (for example to provide the version for older kernel 
> versions, I dont see that as unreasonable at all)?
> 
> 
> > About the existing out-of-tree kernel modules, we must continue trying
> > to obsolete them with upstream work.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> >
> > If you feel the consensus must be clearly stated and acked,
> > please send a patch for doc/guides/contributing/design.rst.
> 
> I'll be happy to, once we have a clear consensus on what the policy 
> actually is.

Sending a patch is the most efficient way of having the discussion
happens with more contributors.
We, as a technical community, take some patch-based decisions ;)