[dpdk-dev] Why nothing since 1.8.0?
Thomas Monjalon
thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com
Fri Jan 16 08:16:45 CET 2015
2015-01-15 17:46, Matthew Hall:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 09:55:00PM +0000, O'driscoll, Tim wrote:
> > As you said, there's a balance to be struck, and too many subtrees may
> > become unmanageable. With respect to your concern about developers having to
> > potentially develop patches against multiple subtrees, this has never been
> > raised as a concern by any of our development team. Is there any historical
> > data on the number of changes that would fall into this category so we can
> > see if it's a real problem or not?
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> What happens when a core API like rte_mbuf gets some changes, and you have to
> update the PMD's to fit?
>
> Do I have to make 10-20 odd random patches to separate PMD maintainers instead
> of one set of patches to the PMD subtree?
Then the patchset is core-wide and must be managed in the main tree.
> To me it doesn't sound very nice for the guys maintaining the core. Given most
> of the changes seem to be mbuf or eal this seems like a scaling issue to me.
In previous release, there were a lot of changes related to i40e.
And we expect to have the same level of activity for fm10k.
> But maybe I misunderstood the process.
No problem, we are starting experiencing this model and will write some
guidelines.
--
Thomas
More information about the dev
mailing list