From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 5/6] lib: added new library for latency
 stats
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:05:43 +0530
Message-ID: <20170117073542.GA8046@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1484583573-30163-1-git-send-email-remy.horton@intel.com>
 <1484583573-30163-6-git-send-email-remy.horton@intel.com>
 <20170117042935.GA32676@localhost.localdomain>
 <53c0d045-8497-3657-ced6-a1edd0cbb310@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: <dev@dpdk.org>, Reshma Pattan <reshma.pattan@intel.com>, Thomas Monjalon
 <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: Remy Horton <remy.horton@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
 (mail-bl2nam02on0042.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.38.42])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACD48DE3
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 08:36:04 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <53c0d045-8497-3657-ced6-a1edd0cbb310@intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <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>

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 06:48:30AM +0000, Remy Horton wrote:
> 
> On 17/01/2017 04:29, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> [..]
> > It is a value added feature for DPDK. But what is the plan for incorporating
> > the mbuf change? I have 8 month old mbuf change for ARM for natural
> > alignment. If we are accepting any mbuf change then we need to include
> > outstanding mbuf changes to avoid future ABI breakage.
> > 
> > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/12878/
> 
> I know there's some discussion going on in the background regarding this.
> I've yet to hear a definite answer myself..

This was the last thread on this topic
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-July/043222.html

Where Oliver want to group a few of the mbuf changes together.
Thats is good. But, looking at the history(holding a ARM specific patch for 8
months), I don't believe, we will get consensus on _all_ the items on
mbuf change like ports, m->next etc.
I think we had consensus on my change(making mbuf natural
aligned), but it was queued for grouping with other mbuf changes.

Jerin

> 
> ..Remy