04/07/2017 18:52, Dumitrescu, Cristian: > > 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?
Yes you're right, same magnitude (but 2 times bigger). I would have preffered eventdev and rte_flow be better introduced. > 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. For me it's simpler to start with basic stuff and add more features. But it may be just a taste. > 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. I had not seen any news about this patchset and the tree was empty during a long time so I thought you were working on it. > 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. No, I do not want to insist. I understand you have a different taste than mine :) I will check for pulling your tree in following days. Please try to be available on IRC, in case I catch a last minute detail to fix. Thanks
