[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/9] net/ionic: update documentation and MAINTAINERS

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 12/9/2020 2:36 PM, Andrew Boyer wrote:
> Please respond to my questions this time. I have ~70 more patches to post by 
> December 20.
> 
>> On Dec 9, 2020, at 7:03 AM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com 
>> <mailto:ferruh.yigit at intel.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/4/2020 8:16 PM, Andrew Boyer wrote:
>>> The UNMAINTAINED flag will be removed in a future patch.
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Boyer <aboyer at pensando.io <mailto:aboyer at pensando.io>>
>>> ---
>>>  MAINTAINERS                        |  3 ++-
>>>  doc/guides/nics/features/ionic.ini |  2 ++
>>>  doc/guides/nics/ionic.rst          | 13 +++++++------
>>>  3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
>>> index eafe9f8c4..6534983c1 100644
>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>>> @@ -841,7 +841,8 @@ F: drivers/net/pfe/
>>>  F: doc/guides/nics/features/pfe.ini
>>>    Pensando ionic - UNMAINTAINED
>>> -M: Alfredo Cardigliano <cardigliano at ntop.org <mailto:cardigliano at ntop.org>>
>>> +M: Andrew Boyer <aboyer at pensando.io <mailto:aboyer at pensando.io>>
>>> +M: Pensando Drivers <drivers at pensando.io <mailto:drivers at pensando.io>>
>>
>> Same comment from previous version, please don't add group as maintainer, only 
>> actual people.
> 
> I responded to your original comment about this back in November. Is there an 
> official DPDK policy against doing this? Is it your preference? We would very 
> much prefer to have this in the file as a fallback. As long as there is still at 
> least one person listed, what is the harm?
> 

There is no official policy against it as far as I know.

The problem with the groups is we don't know who is behind it, it blurs who is 
the owner/responsible of the component. Actual people makes it clear that who is 
responsible.

Why do you prefer to add a group as maintainer?

>>>  F: drivers/net/ionic/
>>>  F: doc/guides/nics/ionic.rst
>>>  F: doc/guides/nics/features/ionic.ini
>>> diff --git a/doc/guides/nics/features/ionic.ini 
>>> b/doc/guides/nics/features/ionic.ini
>>> index 083c7bd99..dd29dbed6 100644
>>> --- a/doc/guides/nics/features/ionic.ini
>>> +++ b/doc/guides/nics/features/ionic.ini
>>> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ Speed capabilities   = Y
>>>  Link status          = Y
>>>  Link status event    = Y
>>>  Queue start/stop     = Y
>>> +Lock-free Tx queue   = Y
>>
>> Are you sure this is supported?
>> Since it is not advertised as capability, I think this can't be claimed as 
>> supported, but still even after this is added as capability, can you please 
>> confirm your device supports multiple core enqueue to same queue without locks?
> 
> I misunderstood the meaning of this flag, will remove.
> 
>>>  MTU update           = Y
>>>  Jumbo frame          = Y
>>>  Scattered Rx         = Y
>>> @@ -19,6 +20,7 @@ Unicast MAC filter   = Y
>>>  RSS hash             = Y
>>>  RSS key update       = Y
>>>  RSS reta update      = Y
>>> +SR-IOV               = Y
>>
>> Can you please explain what is exactly supported? Like can DPDK drive both PF 
>> & VF?
> 
> Yes. The PMD does not distinguish between PFs and VFs.
> 
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>> @@ -7,15 +7,16 @@ IONIC Driver
>>>  The ionic driver provides support for Pensando server adapters.
>>>  It currently supports the below models:
>>>  -- `Naples DSC-25 
>>> <https://pensando.io/assets/documents/Naples-25_ProductBrief_10-2019.pdf 
>>> <https://pensando.io/assets/documents/Naples-25_ProductBrief_10-2019.pdf>>`_
>>> -- `Naples DSC-100 
>>> <https://pensando.io/assets/documents/Naples_100_ProductBrief-10-2019.pdf 
>>> <https://pensando.io/assets/documents/Naples_100_ProductBrief-10-2019.pdf>>`_
>>> +- DSC-25 dual-port 25G Distributed Services Card
>>> +- DSC-100 dual-port 100G Distributed Services Card
>>>
>>
>> Same comment from previous version, can you provide link for these devices, it 
>> is hard to find the devices from the main site.
> 
> And my same response from your previous comment. I do not control the website 
> and do not wish to put stale PDF links in this document, which will live 
> forever. The text includes the URL of the page containing links to the PDFs. Why 
> is this not acceptable?
> 

The request is to put links to the products that you are providing the driver 
for. This is to help people that are already interested your driver and reading 
your driver document, to reach to the product information easily.

The request is NOT to provide pdf etc, just a reference to the product. Don't 
you advertise your product in your official web site? If your product 
information is not visible/hidden, why you are providing the open source drivers 
for it?