[RFC PATCH 2/4] net/bonding: move testpmd commands

[Thomas Monjalon]

19/05/2022 09:40, David Marchand:
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 1:25 AM Konstantin Ananyev
> <konstantin.v.ananyev at yandex.ru> wrote:
> > 18/05/2022 18:24, David Marchand пишет:
> > > On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 12:10 PM Min Hu (Connor) <humin29 at huawei.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>    I think net/bonding offer 'API' for APP to use the bonding.
> > >>      and use the specific PMD as slave device.
> > >>    The software framwork is like:
> > >>     APP
> > >>     ethdev
> > >>     bonding PMD
> > >>     PMD
> > >>     hardware
> > >>
> > >> so, I think cmdlines for testpmd should not put in net/bonding.be

The bonding API is specific to drivers/net/bonding/,
so according to the techboard decision,
the testpmd code should go in the driver directory.

> > Actually, I feel the same.
> > I do understand the intention, and I do realize it is just location,
> > but still doesn't look right for me.
> > can't we have a special sub-folder in testpmd instead?
> > Something like app/testpmd/driver_specific/(ixgbe)|(i40e)|(bonding)...
> 
> That should not pose a problem, indeed.
> And, on the plus side, it avoids putting some testpmd global variables
> in meson (which I was not entirely happy with).

I like the global variables approach.

> But, on the other side, I have a concern about MAINTAINERS updates.
> 
> (almost) everything in app/test-pmd has been under the testpmd
> maintainer responsibility.
> Separating the driver specific code from testpmd is a way to clearly
> shift this responsibility to the driver maintenance.

I agree.

> One advantage of moving the code to the driver directory is that there
> is no MAINTAINERS update needed.

Yes I think moving test code in the driver directory is smart.
We already have this approach for some self tests run with app/test.
And more important, the techboard has decided to move code in the driver
or lib directory:
	https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2022-April/239191.html

> If we keep those in app/test-pmd, it is still possible to mark the
> driver-specific sources in MAINTAINERS, but such updates are often
> missed.
> I can probably add something in devtools/ to catch those updates in
> the future...
> 
> I'll try for RFC v3.