From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ferruh Yigit Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/4] Userspace Network Control Interface (UNCI) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 17:56:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20170526165228.96919-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <20170621110651.75299-1-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <20170626113909.GD102672@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <58c4e676-a9c6-d5d0-c462-f4f96f7182cb@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, anatoly.burakov@intel.com To: Bruce Richardson Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E60197CBE for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 18:56:13 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <58c4e676-a9c6-d5d0-c462-f4f96f7182cb@intel.com> 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" On 6/29/2017 5:13 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: <...> >> 3. From a patchset split point of view, could this set be split up to be >> a bit more granular. There are a lot of functions to be performed on >> NICs called out in the code, e.g. start/stop, get stats, etc. etc. To >> make review easier, should we initially add the kernel module and >> userspace parts with just one function supported, and then add in each >> additional function in a new patchset, so that we can clearly see the >> code for each function isolated from the rest. This is the approach - >> adding feature by feature - that is recommended for NIC drivers, and it >> might make sense here too. > > Let me try to split patches more. Done, sent v9, patchset split into more patches. > >> >> Otherwise, great work. I think this is a huge improvement in usability >> for DPDK, especially if we add in future support for controlling DPDK >> interfaces in a (not interfering with the app) safe manner too. >> >> /Bruce >> >