On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:57:15AM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 04:04:29PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > +Thomas
> >
> > 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:
> > > > As previously discussed in RFC v1 [1], RFC v2 [2], with changes
> > > > described in [3] (also pasted below), here is the first non-draft series
> > > > for this new API.
> > > >
> > > > [1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-August/045181.html
> > > > [2] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-October/048592.html
> > > > [3] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-October/048196.html
> > > >
> > > > Changes since RFC v2:
> > > >
> > > > - Updated the documentation to define the need for this library[Jerin]
> > > > - Added RTE_EVENT_QUEUE_CFG_*_ONLY configuration parameters in
> > > > struct rte_event_queue_conf to enable optimized sw implementation
> > > > [Bruce]
> > > > - Introduced RTE_EVENT_OP* ops [Bruce]
> > > > - Added nb_event_queue_flows,nb_event_port_dequeue_depth,
> > > > nb_event_port_enqueue_depth
> > > > in rte_event_dev_configure() like ethdev and crypto library[Jerin]
> > > > - Removed rte_event_release() and replaced with RTE_EVENT_OP_RELEASE
> > > > ops to
> > > > reduce fast path APIs and it is redundant too[Jerin]
> > > > - In the view of better application portability, Removed pin_event
> > > > from rte_event_enqueue as it is just hint and Intel/NXP can not
> > > > support it[Jerin]
> > > > - Added rte_event_port_links_get()[Jerin]
> > > > - Added rte_event_dev_dump[Harry]
> > > >
> > > > Notes:
> > > >
> > > > - This patch set is check-patch clean with an exception that
> > > > 02/04 has one WARNING:MACRO_WITH_FLOW_CONTROL
> > > > - Looking forward to getting additional maintainers for libeventdev
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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
I'm wondering maybe we could have a staging tree, for all features like
this one (and one branch for each feature)?
--yliu
