[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/8] mbuf: structure reorganization
olivier.matz at 6wind.com
Wed Apr 19 14:28:20 CEST 2017
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:39:01 +0200, Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net> wrote:
> 18/04/2017 15:04, Olivier MATZ:
> > On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 14:10:33 +0100, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
> > > > 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 at 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 at 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?
More information about the dev