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

[Bruce Richardson]

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 10:40:50AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-11-19 00:57, Jerin Jacob:
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 04:04:29PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > > 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:
> > > > > 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?
> > 
> > I was thinking more or less along the same lines. To avoid re-spinning the
> > same set, it is better to have libeventdev library mark as EXPERIMENTAL
> > and commit it somewhere on dpdk-eventdev-next or main tree
> > 
> > I think, EXPERIMENTAL status can be changed only when
> > - At least two event drivers available
> > - Functional test applications fine with at least two drivers
> > - Portable example application to showcase the features of the library
> > - eventdev integration with another dpdk subsystem such as ethdev
> 
> Are you asking for a temporary tree?
> If yes, please tell its name and its committers, it will be done.

Yes, we are asking for a new tree, but I would not assume it is
temporary - it might be, but it also might not be, given how other
threads are discussing having an increasing number of subtrees giving
pull requests. :-)

Name: dpdk-eventdev-next
Committers: Bruce Richardson & Jerin Jacob

Thanks,
/Bruce.