[dpdk-dev] New driver (large patch) question.

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 11:21:26 +0100
Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> 2016-03-01 19:56, Stephen Hurd:
> > I submitted a new driver on Friday, and it was rejected for being over 300k.
> > 
> > The rejection email suggested contacing dev-owner at dpdk.org, which I did on
> > Monday with no reply.
> > 
> > What's the process to submit patches larger than the mailing list size
> > limit?
> 
> A patch has two lives:
> 1/ it must be reviewed and accepted
> 2/ it will stay in the git history for future reference
> 
> Those 2 periods require the patch to be well explained, with a
> reasonnable scope and a human readable size.
> The primary rule to think about is to introduce only one feature
> per patch.
> So the size should be naturally small and the mailing list don't need
> to accept greater sizes.
> 
> To make it short, please split your driver in several introduction steps.
> 

Too many of the DPDK drivers are bloated.
Recall the venerable paraphrase of Pascal, "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Too_long;_didn%27t_read

Linux went through similar stages. Many drivers ended up being rewritten
for brevity (e1000, skge, tg3). Vendor drivers seem to want to engage all features
even if they have no value.