[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] libeventdev API and northbound implementation

[Bruce Richardson]

+Thomas

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 03:25:18PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:14:58AM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> > As previously discussed in RFC v1 [1], RFC v2 [2], with changes
> > described in [3] (also pasted below), here is the first non-draft series
> > for this new API.
> > 
> > [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-August/045181.html
> > [2] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-October/048592.html
> > [3] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-October/048196.html
> > 
> > Changes since RFC v2:
> > 
> > - Updated the documentation to define the need for this library[Jerin]
> > - Added RTE_EVENT_QUEUE_CFG_*_ONLY configuration parameters in
> >   struct rte_event_queue_conf to enable optimized sw implementation [Bruce]
> > - Introduced RTE_EVENT_OP* ops [Bruce]
> > - Added nb_event_queue_flows,nb_event_port_dequeue_depth, nb_event_port_enqueue_depth
> >   in rte_event_dev_configure() like ethdev and crypto library[Jerin]
> > - Removed rte_event_release() and replaced with RTE_EVENT_OP_RELEASE ops to
> >   reduce fast path APIs and it is redundant too[Jerin]
> > - In the view of better application portability, Removed pin_event
> >   from rte_event_enqueue as it is just hint and Intel/NXP can not support it[Jerin]
> > - Added rte_event_port_links_get()[Jerin]
> > - Added rte_event_dev_dump[Harry]
> > 
> > Notes:
> > 
> > - This patch set is check-patch clean with an exception that
> > 02/04 has one WARNING:MACRO_WITH_FLOW_CONTROL
> > - Looking forward to getting additional maintainers for libeventdev
> > 
> > 
> > Possible next steps:
> > 1) Review this patch set
> > 2) Integrate Intel's SW driver[http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/17049/]
> > 3) Review proposed examples/eventdev_pipeline application[http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/17053/]
> > 4) Review proposed functional tests[http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/17051/]
> > 5) Cavium's HW based eventdev driver
> > 
> > I am planning to work on (3),(4) and (5)
> > 
> Thanks Jerin,
> 
> we'll review and get back to you with any comments or feedback (1), and
> obviously start working on item (2) also! :-)
> 
> I'm also wonder whether we should have a staging tree for this work to
> make interaction between us easier. Although this may not be
> finalised enough for 17.02 release, do you think having an
> dpdk-eventdev-next tree would be a help? My thinking is that once we get
> the eventdev library itself in reasonable shape following our review, we
> could commit that and make any changes thereafter as new patches, rather
> than constantly respinning the same set. It also gives us a clean git
> tree to base the respective driver implementations on from our two sides.
> 
> Thomas, any thoughts here on your end - or from anyone else?
> 
> Regards,
> /Bruce
>