On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:44 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > 21/02/2020 16:56, Jerin Jacob: > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 4:40 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > > 21/02/2020 11:30, Jerin Jacob: > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 4:28 PM Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 2:08 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > If we add rte_graph to DPDK, we will have 2 similar libraries. > > > > > > > > > > > > I already proposed several times to move rte_pipeline in a separate > > > > > > repository for two reasons: > > > > > > 1/ it is acting at a higher API layer level > > > > > > > > > > We need to define what is the higher layer API. Is it processing > > > > > beyond L2? > > > > > > My opinion is that any API which is implemented differently > > > for different hardware should be in DPDK. > > > > We need to define SIMD optimization(not HW specific to but > > architecture-specific) > > treatment as well, as the graph and node library will have SIMD > > optimization as well. > > I think SIMD optimization is generic to any performance-related project, > not specific to DPDK. > > > > In general, by the above policy enforced, we need to split DPDK like below, > > dpdk.git > > ---------- > > librte_compressdev > > librte_bbdev > > librte_eventdev > > librte_pci > > librte_rawdev > > librte_eal > > librte_security > > librte_mempool > > librte_mbuf > > librte_cryptodev > > librte_ethdev > > > > other repo(s). > > ---------------- > > librte_cmdline > > librte_cfgfile > > librte_bitratestats > > librte_efd > > librte_latencystats > > librte_kvargs > > librte_jobstats > > librte_gso > > librte_gro > > librte_flow_classify > > librte_pipeline > > librte_net > > librte_metrics > > librte_meter > > librte_member > > librte_table > > librte_stack > > librte_sched > > librte_rib > > librte_reorder > > librte_rcu > > librte_power > > librte_distributor > > librte_bpf > > librte_ip_frag > > librte_hash > > librte_fib > > librte_timer > > librte_telemetry > > librte_port > > librte_pdump > > librte_kni > > librte_acl > > librte_vhost > > librte_ring > > librte_lpm > > librte_ipsec > > I think it is a fair conclusion of the scope I am arguing, yes.
OK. See below. > > > What is expected to be maintained, tested, etc. > > > > We need to maintain and test other code in OTHER dpdk repo as well. > > Yes but the ones responsible are not the same. I see your point. Can I interpret it as you would like to NOT take responsibility of SW libraries(Items enumerated in the second list)? I think, the main question would be, how it will deliver to distros and/or end-users and what will be part of the dpdk release? I can think of two options. Maybe distro folks have better view on this. options 1: - Split dpdk to dpdk-core.git, dpdk-algo.git etc based on the functionalities and maintainer's availability. - Follow existing release cadence and deliver single release tarball with content from the above repos. options 2: - Introduce more subtrees(dpdk-next-algo.git etc) based on the functionalities and maintainer's availability. - Follow existing release cadence and have a pull request to main dpdk.git just like Linux kernel or existing scheme of things. I am for option 2. NOTE: This new graph and node library, I would like to make its new subtree in the existing scheme of things so that it will NOT be a burden for you to manage.
