Hi Thomas, > It was discussed in the techboard today. > Please read the summary below. > > We want to keep l2fwd as simple as possible. > So we agree to have a fork of l2fwd for eventdev. > > It was proposed to integrate eventdev in l2fwd, l3fwd and ipsec-secgw. > l2fwd will get eventdev integration in its fork l2fwd-event. > l3fwd will get eventdev integration in a separate file. > ipsec-secgw will get more complex eventdev integration. > We don't expect to have more examples impacted. > There will be no code shared for eventdev integration between the > examples.
Thanks for taking this up in the techboard meeting. The above plan looks fine to me. Will prepare v2 with the above mentioned changes. Thanks, Anoob > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:01 PM > To: Anoob Joseph <[email protected]> > Cc: Mattias Rönnblom <[email protected]>; Bruce Richardson > <[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Nikhil Rao <[email protected]>; > Erik Gabriel Carrillo <[email protected]>; Abhinandan Gujjar > <[email protected]>; Pablo de Lara > <[email protected]>; Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya > <[email protected]>; Lukas Bartosik <[email protected]>; Pavan > Nikhilesh Bhagavatula <[email protected]>; Hemant Agrawal > <[email protected]>; Nipun Gupta <[email protected]>; Harry > van Haaren <[email protected]>; Liang Ma > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH 00/39] adding eventmode helper > library > > 03/07/2019 11:37, Anoob Joseph: > > From: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> > > > 03/07/2019 03:35, Anoob Joseph: > > > > [Anoob] Initially the target would be only DPDK applications. > > > > As I had mentioned earlier, I'm dropping the idea of making this a > > > > library/common code. My proposal is to have all the code in > > > > l2fwd-event application itself. > > > > In that case, would you have any problem? > > > > > > No I think that's fine to do whatever you want in this forked example. > > > But remind that you won't be allowed to fork one more example until > > > things are settled down and approved by the technical board. > > > > [Anoob] Idea was never to fork any example. If we are in agreement with > going with just l2fwd-event (and all the code in one directory), I can start > working on v2 patches with the agreed changes. > > > > Also, what is your suggestion on when we can take up a more complicated > example (let's say ipsec-secgw)? When would you say things are settled > down? > > It was discussed in the techboard today. > Please read the summary below. > > We want to keep l2fwd as simple as possible. > So we agree to have a fork of l2fwd for eventdev. > > It was proposed to integrate eventdev in l2fwd, l3fwd and ipsec-secgw. > l2fwd will get eventdev integration in its fork l2fwd-event. > l3fwd will get eventdev integration in a separate file. > ipsec-secgw will get more complex eventdev integration. > We don't expect to have more examples impacted. > There will be no code shared for eventdev integration between the > examples. > > Hope it clarifies the situation. >
