2016-03-02 12:21, Thomas Monjalon:
> 2016-03-02 11:47, Vincent JARDIN:
> > Le 02/03/2016 09:27, Panu Matilainen a ?crit :
> > >>> I'd like to see these be merged.
> > >>>
> > >>> Jay
> > >>
> > >> The code is really not ready. I am okay with cooperative development
> > >> but the current code needs to go into a staging type tree.
> > >> No compatibility, no ABI guarantees, more of an RFC.
> > >> Don't want vendors building products with it then screaming when it
> > >> gets rebuilt/reworked/scrapped.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Exactly.
> >
> > +1 too
> >
> > We need to build on this innovation while there is a path for kernel
> > mainstream. The logic of using a staging is a good one.
> >
> > Thomas,
> >
> > can we open a staging folder into the DPDK like it is done into the kernel?
>
> It's possible to create a staging directory if everybody agree.
> It is important to state in a README file or in the doc/ that
> there will be no guarantee (no stable ABI, no validation and can be dropped)
> and that it is a work in progress, a suggestion to discuss with the kernel
> community.
>
> The kernel modules must clearly target an upstream integration.
Actually the examples directory has been used as a staging for ethtool and
lthread. We also have the crypto API which is still experimental.
So I think we must decide among these 3 solutions:
- no special directory, just mark and document an experimental state
- put only kcp/kdp in the staging directory
- put kcp/kdp in staging and move other experimental libs here
