On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Mcnamara, John <john.mcnamara at intel.com> wrote:
> > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Christian Ehrhardt > > Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 12:17 PM > > To: christian.ehrhardt at canonical.com; thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com; > > dev at dpdk.org > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] doc: add basic invocation info for dpdk- > > pmdinfo > > [...] > > --- a/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/index.rst > > +++ b/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/index.rst > > @@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ Sample Applications User Guide > > I think these docs would be better in a "doc/guides/tools" directory. > That would be clearer in terms to the documentation structure and > also in terms of their functionality > I agree that it represents the scope better then, but I was aligning myself to the pdump and procinfo tools that are already there. testpmd is a bit of an outlier, as that already has its own dir. But I assume given the suggestion to move the new ones we would want to move those other two as well then? I thank that would serve consistency then - I'll prep a patch with that as part of the series. [...] free-of-discussion ack to all other suggestions