[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 3/5] ethdev: redesign link speed config API

[Marc]

On 29 January 2016 at 11:17, Ananyev, Konstantin <
konstantin.ananyev at intel.com> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 9:54 AM
> > To: Ananyev, Konstantin
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Marc Sune; Lu, Wenzhuo; Zhang, Helin; Harish Patil;
> Chen, Jing D; Mcnamara, John
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 3/5] ethdev: redesign link speed
> config API
> >
> > 2016-01-29 09:47, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> > > > 2016-01-29 09:24, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> > > > > Can you avoid modifications in the e1000/base code?
>

Yes I can. It was just to save intermediate variables and conversions.
Previously u16 was used to store numeric throughput in mbps in ethdev, and
passed to the inner functions in e1000/base, but it cannot accommodate 100G
values, so I moved it to uint32_t. But I can do the conversion outside of
e1000/base.

> > > > We do not modify (and maintain) that part on our own.
> > > > > Instead we take it straight from Intel ND.
> > > > > So if you feel like these changes are really necessary - please
> submit a patch
> > > > > to ND first, and if your changes will be applied, will pick it up
> from them.
> > > >
> > > > I was not aware we can submit a change to ND for Intel base drivers.
> > > > What is the procedure please?
> > >
> > > I meant not to the ND directly, but probably to the freebsd e1000
> kernel driver.
> > > As I remember, that is the closest one to what we have.
> > > From my understanding (I might be wrong here):
> > > If they will be accepted, we should see these changes In next code
> drops from ND.
> >
> > These base drivers are used in several places.
> > We are allowed to submit a patch in Linux or FreeBSD but not in DPDK
> > where the base driver is verbatim?
>
> Yes, that's my understanding.
>
> > We have an agreement to not touch them in DPDK
>
> Yes.
>
> > but I still think the
> > ND team could consider some patches from dpdk.org.
>
> I personally think that would be a good thing,
> but it is up to ND guys to make such decision.


Agree, but:

Besides documenting (which is necessary), why not importing the sources via
a git submodule pointing to the base project where these files are obtained
(e.g. in  drivers/net/e1000/ext/ or even in the root folder under ext/ and
making symlinks to that in e1000 driver), and just use the raw sources and
headers from there?

That would make it more explicit that these files should not be modified by
DPDK by strictly forbidding so, and that changes should be done via the
repository pointed in drivers/net/e1000/ext/, hence following that
repository's workflow.

marc


>
> Konstantin
>
>