On Sat, 5 Dec 2015 17:53:04 +0000 "Glynn, Michael J" <michael.j.glynn at intel.com> wrote:
> > > -----Original Message----- > From: Betts, Ian > Sent: Saturday, December 5, 2015 12:07 PM > To: Thomas Monjalon; Stephen Hemminger > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; O'Driscoll, Tim; Richardson, Bruce; Glynn, Michael J > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 0/4] examples: add performance-thread > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > Sent: Friday, December 4, 2015 6:34 PM > To: Stephen Hemminger > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Betts, Ian > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 0/4] examples: add performance-thread > > > Intel may have some milestone to get it into DPDK 2.2 but really this > > seems too late... > > >>>Yes, sure it is too late to have enough discussions in 2.2 timeframe > >Just to understand what we mean by too late... > >The original RFC was issued on 2nd September. > >Thus there have been some three months available for discussion, and for > >people to raise any questions or concerns. > >The first patch was available on 30th September, and a number of subsequent > >patch versions have been issued, meaning the code has been available for > >review for two month > >As mentioned in the reply to Stephen, there has been no adverse feedback > >during this period. > >/Ian > > Hi Thomas/Stephen > > I agree with Ian, how much time is expected for a discussion to happen? > > As Ian stated, the feature was stated in our 2.2 planned feature list, we > created a RFC over 3 months ago, and there's been code available for review > for over 2 months now! (not to mention several version updates, docs, etc.). > Given this, I believe that there has been ample time for the community to > review and provide feedback rather than waiting until the eve of RC3 and then > requesting more time. > > In addition, by making it a sample application first people can test it, see > if it's useful, and further enhance it. Based on usefulness and feedback, we > can then decide whether to make it a DPDK library in a future release, make > it a separate library somewhere else, or do nothing further on it > > For these reasons, I believe it should be merged into RC3 Since it is an example and well documented that is fine. Is there an explicit statement that ABI is not binding for examples?