[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10 0/4] flow classification library
bernard.iremonger at intel.com
Tue Oct 24 11:53:53 CEST 2017
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas at monjalon.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 10:39 AM
> To: Mcnamara, John <john.mcnamara at intel.com>; Iremonger, Bernard
> <bernard.iremonger at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>; Ananyev,
> Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; Dumitrescu, Cristian
> <cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com>; adrien.mazarguil at 6wind.com; Singh,
> Jasvinder <jasvinder.singh at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v10 0/4] flow classification library
> 24/10/2017 11:23, Mcnamara, John:
> > From: Iremonger, Bernard
> > >
> > > Hi Thomas,
> > >
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas at monjalon.net]
> > >
> > > > I suppose you are OK to wait one more release and call for more
> > > reviewers?
> > >
> > > This library was not ready for 17.11.RC1 having received some
> > > comments just before the RC1 deadline.
> > > It was then targeted for RC2 and we have pulled out all the stops to
> > > get it ready for RC2.
> > >
> > > It is now at v10 of the patch set, there have been no review
> > > comments from the community (apart from Intel), since RFC v3.
> > >
> > > I think that there has been ample time for the community to review
> > > this patch set, calling for more reviewers at this point is not helpful.
> I have to review some basic things in your series.
> I did not take time to review it because I thought John told me it would not
> make 17.11.
> > > The API's of the library are marked as experimental, so there will
> > > be no issues with ABI breakage, if there are requests for changes later.
> It is not marked EXPERIMENTAL in the MAINTAINERS file.
My mistake, it is marked as experimental in rte_flow_classify_version.map
I can send a v11 patch set if needed.
> > > I am not OK to wait one more release, I believe we have followed the
> > > process correctly.
> Yes, you followed the process.
> > +1 for inclusion in RC2.
> It is not common to add a new library in RC2.
> When doing the RC1 announce, I did not mention this library as a possible
> inclusion exception in RC2, and I had no feedback:
I probably should have replied to this email.
> I was really sure you were not targetting 17.11.
We have always been targeting 17.11
> So I did not do the last pass review. Probably my mistake.
> We are having a hard time with 17.11 release, so I would prefer avoiding
> adding one more new library at this stage.
This is a new library and should not impact anyone.
I believe we have followed the process, so I think it should not be deferred to 18.02.
More information about the dev