From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ferruh Yigit Subject: Vendor specific sub-trees under next-net Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 00:29:43 +0100 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "Zhu, Heqing" , John McNamara , Vincent JARDIN To: DPDK , "Zhang, Helin" , Thomas Monjalon , Olga Shern , Jerin Jacob , Hemant Agrawal , Gaetan Rivet , Pascal Mazon Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E77D1B351 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 01:29:45 +0200 (CEST) Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi Thomas, et al Previously it has been mentioned [1] to have vendor specific driver trees under next-net. And recently Mellanox agreed to have a Mellanox tree [2]. Intel also agrees to have next-net-intel, and Helin will be maintaining it, thanks to Helin for volunteering. Other vendors with multiple drivers are Cavium, 6wind and NXP. - Is there a name for Mellanox maintainer? - What do other vendors, mentioned above, thinks about creating their own sub-tree? - Are the vendor sub-trees and their maintainers need to be approved by tech-board? And what I understand from vendor specific sub-trees is, instead of driver patches going into next-net directly, they will go into vendor tree and next-net will pull from them. This will distribute the maintenance work among the vendors, also will give more control to vendors on their patches. Thanks, ferruh [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-September/075094.html [2] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-October/078277.html