From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] mbuf: structure reorganization
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:28:20 +0200
Message-ID: <20170419142820.5902a513@glumotte.dev.6wind.com>
References: <1488966121-22853-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com>
 <2ead9890-5759-5c31-1805-588967c7cbf2@intel.com>
 <20170418150448.49b9934f@glumotte.dev.6wind.com>
 <4815628.Qayg3alc5T@xps>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com (mail-wm0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3C6537A6
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:27:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f44.google.com with SMTP id w64so78977345wma.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 05:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4815628.Qayg3alc5T@xps>
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 Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:39:01 +0200, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> 18/04/2017 15:04, Olivier MATZ:
> > On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 14:10:33 +0100, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>   
> wrote:
> > > > 2017-04-04 18:27, Olivier Matz:  
> > > >> Once this patchset is pushed, the Rx path of drivers could be optimized
> > > >> a bit, by removing writes to m->next, m->nb_segs and m->refcnt. The
> > > >> patch 4/8 gives an idea of what could be done.  
> > > 
> > > Hi Olivier,
> > > 
> > > Some driver patches already received for this update, but not all yet.
> > > 
> > > Can you please describe what changes are required in PMDs after this
> > > patch? And what will be effect of doing changes or not?  
> > 
> > Yes, I will do it.
> >   
> > > Later we can circulate this information through the PMD maintainers to
> > > be sure proper updates done.  
> > 
> > That would be good.
> > 
> > Do you know what will be the procedure to inform the PMD maintainers?
> > Is there a specific mailing list?  
> 
> We should explain the required changes on dev@dpdk.org as it can be
> interesting for a lot of people (not only current maintainers).

I agree here.

> Then we just have to make sure that the PMDs are updated accordingly
> in a good timeframe (1 or 2 releases).
> If we feel someone miss an important message, we can ping him directly,
> without dev@dpdk.org cc'ed to make sure it pops up in his inbox.
> The other communication channel to ping people is IRC freenode #dpdk.

Who is the "we"? In that particular case, is it my job?
Shouldn't we notify the PMD maintainers more precisely?