On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 10:50 PM Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 02:38:57PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > This RFC attempts to reduce the amount of code duplication across a > > number of Intel NIC drivers, specifically: ixgbe, i40e, iavf, and ice. > > > > The first patch extract a function from the Rx side, otherwise the > > majority of the changes are on the Tx side, leading to a converged Tx > > queue structure across the 4 drivers, and a large number of common > > functions. > > > > When considering the changes in this patchset, I'm still not entirely > satisfied with where to place the common code in the repo. Using the > "drivers/common" seems wrong to me, as it's for code common across devices, > and having a "_common_intel" (or common_intel) folder inside drivers/net
driver/common/intel is OK. I think. > seems a bit ugly to me. > > What would people think of me taking a leaf out of the kernel directory > structure playbook, and moving the intel drivers into a separate > subdirectory "drivers/net/intel"? I've done up a prototype RFC patch for I thought the reason for not keeping the company name was to - not change the directory structure if NIC block is bought by another company (driver/net/bnxk was with Boradcom then moved to Marvell) or acquired by another company. (Cavium->Marvell) > this (which I will send out on this thread), and the changes to support > that are very small. That then allows us to have a drivers/net/intel/common > folder which seems rather neat to me. It also shortens the list of drivers > directly in drivers/net by quite a bit, since there are quite a few intel > drivers accumulated over the years. :-) > > Thoughts, comments or objections? > > /Bruce
