On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:39:01 +0200, Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > 18/04/2017 15:04, Olivier MATZ: > > On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 14:10:33 +0100, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > wrote: > > > > 2017-04-04 18:27, Olivier Matz: > > > >> Once this patchset is pushed, the Rx path of drivers could be optimized > > > >> a bit, by removing writes to m->next, m->nb_segs and m->refcnt. The > > > >> patch 4/8 gives an idea of what could be done. > > > > > > Hi Olivier, > > > > > > Some driver patches already received for this update, but not all yet. > > > > > > Can you please describe what changes are required in PMDs after this > > > patch? And what will be effect of doing changes or not? > > > > Yes, I will do it. > > > > > Later we can circulate this information through the PMD maintainers to > > > be sure proper updates done. > > > > That would be good. > > > > Do you know what will be the procedure to inform the PMD maintainers? > > Is there a specific mailing list? > > We should explain the required changes on dev@dpdk.org as it can be > interesting for a lot of people (not only current maintainers).
I agree here. > Then we just have to make sure that the PMDs are updated accordingly > in a good timeframe (1 or 2 releases). > If we feel someone miss an important message, we can ping him directly, > without dev@dpdk.org cc'ed to make sure it pops up in his inbox. > The other communication channel to ping people is IRC freenode #dpdk. Who is the "we"? In that particular case, is it my job? Shouldn't we notify the PMD maintainers more precisely?
