From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/4] examples: add performance-thread Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 11:47:29 -0800 Message-ID: <20151205114729.1ef2f958@xeon-e3> References: <1449159683-7092-3-git-send-email-ian.betts@intel.com> <1449225265-14480-1-git-send-email-ian.betts@intel.com> <20151204100359.6b966aea@xeon-e3> <1850494.rdblc2vbpm@xps13> <877C1F8553E92F43898365570816082F35C0BDF7@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> <6A5E04BECFB4144EAFCF9EAE3B739A5355917E56@IRSMSX106.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Betts, Ian" To: "Glynn, Michael J" Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f177.google.com (mail-pf0-f177.google.com [209.85.192.177]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85F6491AD for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2015 21:40:59 +0100 (CET) Received: by pfbg73 with SMTP id g73so44539233pfb.1 for ; Sat, 05 Dec 2015 12:40:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6A5E04BECFB4144EAFCF9EAE3B739A5355917E56@IRSMSX106.ger.corp.intel.com> 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" On Sat, 5 Dec 2015 17:53:04 +0000 "Glynn, Michael J" wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Betts, Ian > Sent: Saturday, December 5, 2015 12:07 PM > To: Thomas Monjalon; Stephen Hemminger > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; O'Driscoll, Tim; Richardson, Bruce; Glynn, Michael J > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 0/4] examples: add performance-thread > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > Sent: Friday, December 4, 2015 6:34 PM > To: Stephen Hemminger > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Betts, Ian > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 0/4] examples: add performance-thread > > > Intel may have some milestone to get it into DPDK 2.2 but really this > > seems too late... > > >>>Yes, sure it is too late to have enough discussions in 2.2 timeframe > >Just to understand what we mean by too late... > >The original RFC was issued on 2nd September. > >Thus there have been some three months available for discussion, and for people to raise any questions or concerns. > >The first patch was available on 30th September, and a number of subsequent patch versions have been issued, meaning the code has been available for review for two month > >As mentioned in the reply to Stephen, there has been no adverse feedback during this period. > >/Ian > > Hi Thomas/Stephen > > I agree with Ian, how much time is expected for a discussion to happen? > > As Ian stated, the feature was stated in our 2.2 planned feature list, we created a RFC over 3 months ago, and there's been code available for review for over 2 months now! (not to mention several version updates, docs, etc.). > Given this, I believe that there has been ample time for the community to review and provide feedback rather than waiting until the eve of RC3 and then requesting more time. > > In addition, by making it a sample application first people can test it, see if it's useful, and further enhance it. Based on usefulness and feedback, we can then decide whether to make it a DPDK library in a future release, make it a separate library somewhere else, or do nothing further on it > > For these reasons, I believe it should be merged into RC3 Since it is an example and well documented that is fine. Is there an explicit statement that ABI is not binding for examples?