[dpdk-dev] [pull-request] next-tm 17.08 pre-rc1

[Dumitrescu, Cristian]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas at monjalon.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 4, 2017 4:47 PM
> To: Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com;
> hemant.agrawal at nxp.com; Singh, Jasvinder <jasvinder.singh at intel.com>;
> Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu at intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh
> <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [pull-request] next-tm 17.08 pre-rc1
> 
> Hi Cristian,
> 
> > Dumitrescu, Cristian (2):
> >       ethdev: add traffic management ops get API
> >       ethdev: add traffic management API
> 
> The original request was to split this huge patch.
> It is too messy to bring a whole new API area in one patch.
> We have nothing to refer in case of bug, and it is hard to dive in.
> 
> Please, could you try to split it, bringing features one by one?

Hi Thomas,

Technically, it can be done, but IMO it should not be done this way for the following reasons:

1. None of the new APIs recently introduced in DPDK follow this approach. The rte_flow [1] and the eventdev [2] API are of the same order of magnitude with the TM API, and both were introduced as a single patch header file. Why do things differently for TM API?
	
2. Breaking an API header file into multiple patches usually does not make sense because the sub-components are inter-connected and cross-referenced. When evaluating an API, it needs to be evaluated as a whole for consistency reasons rather than piece by piece. On TM API for example, the capability API is inter-connected with congestion management, shaping, scheduling and marking features; cman and shaping are connected to the nodes that make up the scheduling tree, etc. IMO the end result is adding more confusion than clarity.

This request also comes very late in our preparation to hit RC1. I know you made this mention previously, but I regarded it as a comment/suggestion rather than a hard requirement (sorry for not explaining it my rationale better at the time). You also had several other comments and requests that we fulfilled, as described in the revision history.

So, what do you want me to do? If you still want to go ahead with this request, I will do my best to do it and still meet RC1.

Regards,
Cristian

[1] eventdev API: http://www.dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-November/050356.html
[2] rte_flow API: http://www.dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-December/052951.html