2016-03-16 17:03, Panu Matilainen: > On 03/16/2016 03:58 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2016-03-16 15:15, Panu Matilainen: > >> What I really would like to see is a clear policy regarding kernel > >> modules in DPDK. I certainly am in no position to dictate one, and > >> that's why I've been asking questions and throwing around crazy (or not) > >> ideas around the topic. > > > > I think the consensus is to avoid new kernel module, > > but allow them in a staging directory while being discussed upstream. > > To me the more interesting question is: what happens after that? > As in, if upstream says no, does it mean axe from dpdk, no ifs and buts? > If accepted upstream, does a version of the module still live within > dpdk codebase (for example to provide the version for older kernel > versions, I dont see that as unreasonable at all)? > > > > About the existing out-of-tree kernel modules, we must continue trying > > to obsolete them with upstream work. > > Agreed. > > > > > If you feel the consensus must be clearly stated and acked, > > please send a patch for doc/guides/contributing/design.rst. > > I'll be happy to, once we have a clear consensus on what the policy > actually is.
Sending a patch is the most efficient way of having the discussion happens with more contributors. We, as a technical community, take some patch-based decisions ;)
