02/07/2019 16:26, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran: > From: Anoob Joseph > > Hi Thomas, Jerin, > > > > Is there any consensus on how we should proceed? Can this be taken up by > > techboard?
OK, let me give my detailed opinion. Summary: I don't like this situation at all. I think eventdev should be simple to use and could be added to any example like l2fwd. The idea of forking an example, where we should be able to have an unified API, is a proof of failure. About the copy of the example itself, you are copying it as first patch of this series and then do improvements only to the copy, leaving the original behind. About the helper, I see some command line processing and other things which have nothing to do in a library. Actually I fail to understand the global idea of this helper. There is no description of what this helper is, and even no name for it. > For me it make sense to move these helper functions to examples/.. and make > it as standalone(not as library) > Suggested directory(In the order of my preference). No strong preference on > the directory name though > 1) examples/helper or > 2) examples/common or > 3) examples/utils If we are not able to give it a better name than "helper" or "utils", it is like moving it in a trash folder. And last but not least, there is not a lot of reaction to this series. So my suggestion is to do your PoC in a standalone example, improving the original example at the same time, and try to improve the eventdev library if possible. Then we should not propagate this design to more examples until we have a proof that it is a progress.
