From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] mbuf: structure reorganization
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 15:12:02 +0200
Message-ID: <5143340.QmOeufPag9@xps>
References: <1488966121-22853-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com>
 <2313944.lXlCutk7ET@xps> <9e68c252-4ce0-18f5-f054-394c0e067054@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>, dev@dpdk.org
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3245B58CD
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 15:12:04 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <9e68c252-4ce0-18f5-f054-394c0e067054@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>

19/04/2017 15:03, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 4/19/2017 1:56 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 19/04/2017 14:28, Olivier MATZ:
> >> 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?
> > 
> > We as a community :)
> > I think Ferruh will lead the follow-up of this rework,
> > as next-net maintainer.
> 
> I can trace net PMDs.
> 
> Lets start in dev mail list and make sure what a PMD maintainer should
> do is clear, we can wait for a release for updates, later I can ping
> missing ones individually, what do you think?

Sounds like a plan :)
Thank you Ferruh and Olivier