> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 4, 2017 4:47 PM
> To: Dumitrescu, Cristian <cristian.dumitre...@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com;
> hemant.agra...@nxp.com; Singh, Jasvinder <jasvinder.si...@intel.com>;
> Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh
> <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [pull-request] next-tm 17.08 pre-rc1
>
> Hi Cristian,
>
> > Dumitrescu, Cristian (2):
> > ethdev: add traffic management ops get API
> > ethdev: add traffic management API
>
> The original request was to split this huge patch.
> It is too messy to bring a whole new API area in one patch.
> We have nothing to refer in case of bug, and it is hard to dive in.
>
> Please, could you try to split it, bringing features one by one?
Hi Thomas,
Technically, it can be done, but IMO it should not be done this way for the
following reasons:
1. None of the new APIs recently introduced in DPDK follow this approach. The
rte_flow [1] and the eventdev [2] API are of the same order of magnitude with
the TM API, and both were introduced as a single patch header file. Why do
things differently for TM API?
2. Breaking an API header file into multiple patches usually does not make
sense because the sub-components are inter-connected and cross-referenced. When
evaluating an API, it needs to be evaluated as a whole for consistency reasons
rather than piece by piece. On TM API for example, the capability API is
inter-connected with congestion management, shaping, scheduling and marking
features; cman and shaping are connected to the nodes that make up the
scheduling tree, etc. IMO the end result is adding more confusion than clarity.
This request also comes very late in our preparation to hit RC1. I know you
made this mention previously, but I regarded it as a comment/suggestion rather
than a hard requirement (sorry for not explaining it my rationale better at the
time). You also had several other comments and requests that we fulfilled, as
described in the revision history.
So, what do you want me to do? If you still want to go ahead with this request,
I will do my best to do it and still meet RC1.
Regards,
Cristian
[1] eventdev API: http://www.dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-November/050356.html
[2] rte_flow API: http://www.dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-December/052951.html
