On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 10:40:50AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-11-19 00:57, Jerin Jacob: > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 04:04:29PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 03:25:18PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:14:58AM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote: > > > > > Possible next steps: > > > > > 1) Review this patch set > > > > > 2) Integrate Intel's SW > > > > > driver[http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/17049/] > > > > > 3) Review proposed examples/eventdev_pipeline > > > > > application[http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/17053/] > > > > > 4) Review proposed functional > > > > > tests[http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/17051/] > > > > > 5) Cavium's HW based eventdev driver > > > > > > > > > > I am planning to work on (3),(4) and (5) > > > > > > > > > Thanks Jerin, > > > > > > > > we'll review and get back to you with any comments or feedback (1), and > > > > obviously start working on item (2) also! :-) > > > > > > > > I'm also wonder whether we should have a staging tree for this work to > > > > make interaction between us easier. Although this may not be > > > > finalised enough for 17.02 release, do you think having an > > > > dpdk-eventdev-next tree would be a help? My thinking is that once we get > > > > the eventdev library itself in reasonable shape following our review, we > > > > could commit that and make any changes thereafter as new patches, rather > > > > than constantly respinning the same set. It also gives us a clean git > > > > tree to base the respective driver implementations on from our two > > > > sides. > > > > > > > > Thomas, any thoughts here on your end - or from anyone else? > > > > I was thinking more or less along the same lines. To avoid re-spinning the > > same set, it is better to have libeventdev library mark as EXPERIMENTAL > > and commit it somewhere on dpdk-eventdev-next or main tree > > > > I think, EXPERIMENTAL status can be changed only when > > - At least two event drivers available > > - Functional test applications fine with at least two drivers > > - Portable example application to showcase the features of the library > > - eventdev integration with another dpdk subsystem such as ethdev > > Are you asking for a temporary tree? > If yes, please tell its name and its committers, it will be done.
Yes, we are asking for a new tree, but I would not assume it is temporary - it might be, but it also might not be, given how other threads are discussing having an increasing number of subtrees giving pull requests. :-) Name: dpdk-eventdev-next Committers: Bruce Richardson & Jerin Jacob Thanks, /Bruce.
