13/10/2017 01:31, Ferruh Yigit: > Hi Thomas, et al > > Previously it has been mentioned [1] to have vendor specific driver > trees under next-net. > > And recently Mellanox agreed to have a Mellanox tree [2]. > > Intel also agrees to have next-net-intel, and Helin will be maintaining > it, thanks to Helin for volunteering.
Good news, thanks > Other vendors with multiple drivers are Cavium, 6wind and NXP. > > - Is there a name for Mellanox maintainer? > > - What do other vendors, mentioned above, thinks about creating their > own sub-tree? > > - Are the vendor sub-trees and their maintainers need to be approved by > tech-board? Yes every dpdk.org git trees must be approved by the techboard. The next meeting is tomorrow. > And what I understand from vendor specific sub-trees is, instead of > driver patches going into next-net directly, they will go into vendor > tree and next-net will pull from them. Yes we are creating a new git tree layer below next-net. > This will distribute the maintenance work among the vendors, also will > give more control to vendors on their patches. It is very good to distribute workload. In 17.11-rc1, there were more than 500 patches managed in next-net. Thanks Ferruh > Thanks, > ferruh > > > [1] > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-September/075094.html > > [2] > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-October/078277.html
