Yes, implementation and tests are needed before the general release. Should we 
postpone the general release until those are there? Does api-next have to have 
all implemented before merge to master? A new API definition does not break 
anything before someone tries to use it.

-Petri

From: lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of ext Mike 
Holmes
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 8:12 PM
To: Bill Fischofer
Cc: lng-odp; Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v2] timer: Add missing platform handles 
to u64 conversion functions

We specifically need the packet parsing switch and metadata for odp-dpdk to 
perform well so there is a need driving those for 1.1.0.

I think we should strive to have tests and an implementation in before we merge 
any new API. I wonder how we specify who has the correct implementation unless 
that reference is present and agreed to first.
In some cases I agree it should be obvious, but if so then some one with an 
interest should find it fairly easily to implement for linux-generic as well to 
speed its move to main line.

Given that api-next follows mainline, implementations can start work with an 
API in its expected final form before the complete reference is in place 
without sacrificing anything.



On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) 
<petri.savolai...@nokia.com<mailto:petri.savolai...@nokia.com>> wrote:
Also packet_user_area (metadata) and my pktio API changes are missing 
implementation. The delta between API 1.0 and 1.1 is pretty slim if those are 
left out also.

-Petri


From: ext Mike Holmes 
[mailto:mike.hol...@linaro.org<mailto:mike.hol...@linaro.org>]
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 3:45 PM
To: Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo)
Cc: Jerin Jacob; lng-odp

Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v2] timer: Add missing platform handles 
to u64 conversion functions



On 24 April 2015 at 08:31, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) 
<petri.savolai...@nokia.com<mailto:petri.savolai...@nokia.com>> wrote:
These are trivial enough to get into v1.1. I was thinking that we freeze the 
v1.1 API next week, and then work on the missing implementation/validation code 
before labeling the official 1.1.0 release .

1.1 is fine I assumed there would not be an implementation in time. If it is 
simple that is good, but we still need to identify some one to do the work.

To be in for 1.1 which freezes on Wednesday we need an implementation to 
already be in api-next by Wednesday so that CI runs the tests.

Is there any strong reason to hold up 1.1.0 for this ? If it is critical we can 
hold 1.1 for a few days assuming the work is about to land, but why not add it 
to 1.2.0 and release that early with the next crop of work and keep an even 
pace to development ?



-Petri

From: lng-odp 
[mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org<mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org>]
 On Behalf Of ext Mike Holmes
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 2:55 PM
To: Jerin Jacob
Cc: lng-odp
Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v2] timer: Add missing platform handles 
to u64 conversion functions

Hi Jerin

Before this is merged with mainline I think we should have a linux-generic 
implementation and a test case for it.
Do you have the cycles to add those to api-next so that this can be part of 
1.2.0 ?

I think tentatively that 1.2.0 will be in August at this point, although if we 
can start gathering more complete new API work in api-next there is no reason 
to wait that long.

Mike

On 24 April 2015 at 05:13, Jerin Jacob 
<jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com<mailto:jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:46:53AM +0300, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
> Hi Jerin,
>
> you you only removed RFC and Petri added sign-off to that patch you should
> include it to patch without rfc.
>
> also "v1..v2..." should go after --- line in patch. In that case git am just
> skips that comment.

Thanks for pointing it out.

>
> Patch merged to api-next.
>
> Thanks,
> Maxim.
>
> On 04/24/15 09:14, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 04:22:15PM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> >
> >ping
> >
> >>v1..v2 Removed RFC
> >>
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob 
> >><jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com<mailto:jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com>>
> >>---
> >>  include/odp/api/timer.h | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/include/odp/api/timer.h b/include/odp/api/timer.h
> >>index 0dc9415..435c004 100644
> >>--- a/include/odp/api/timer.h
> >>+++ b/include/odp/api/timer.h
> >>@@ -366,6 +366,45 @@ odp_timeout_t odp_timeout_alloc(odp_pool_t pool);
> >>  void odp_timeout_free(odp_timeout_t tmo);
> >>  /**
> >>+ * Get printable value for an odp_timer_pool_t
> >>+ *
> >>+ * @param hdl  odp_timer_pool_t handle to be printed
> >>+ * @return     uint64_t value that can be used to print/display this
> >>+ *             handle
> >>+ *
> >>+ * @note This routine is intended to be used for diagnostic purposes
> >>+ * to enable applications to generate a printable value that represents
> >>+ * an odp_timer_pool_t handle.
> >>+ */
> >>+uint64_t odp_timer_pool_to_u64(odp_timer_pool_t hdl);
> >>+
> >>+/**
> >>+ * Get printable value for an odp_timer_t
> >>+ *
> >>+ * @param hdl  odp_timer_t handle to be printed
> >>+ * @return     uint64_t value that can be used to print/display this
> >>+ *             handle
> >>+ *
> >>+ * @note This routine is intended to be used for diagnostic purposes
> >>+ * to enable applications to generate a printable value that represents
> >>+ * an odp_timer_t handle.
> >>+ */
> >>+uint64_t odp_timer_to_u64(odp_timer_t hdl);
> >>+
> >>+/**
> >>+ * Get printable value for an odp_timeout_t
> >>+ *
> >>+ * @param hdl  odp_timeout_t handle to be printed
> >>+ * @return     uint64_t value that can be used to print/display this
> >>+ *             handle
> >>+ *
> >>+ * @note This routine is intended to be used for diagnostic purposes
> >>+ * to enable applications to generate a printable value that represents
> >>+ * an odp_timeout_t handle.
> >>+ */
> >>+uint64_t odp_timeout_to_u64(odp_timeout_t hdl);
> >>+
> >>+/**
> >>   * @}
> >>   */
> >>--
> >>2.1.0
> >>
> >_______________________________________________
> >lng-odp mailing list
> >lng-odp@lists.linaro.org<mailto:lng-odp@lists.linaro.org>
> >https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
>
> _______________________________________________
> lng-odp mailing list
> lng-odp@lists.linaro.org<mailto:lng-odp@lists.linaro.org>
> https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
_______________________________________________
lng-odp mailing list
lng-odp@lists.linaro.org<mailto:lng-odp@lists.linaro.org>
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp



--
Mike Holmes
Technical Manager - Linaro Networking Group
Linaro.org<http://www.linaro.org/> │ Open source software for ARM SoCs




--
Mike Holmes
Technical Manager - Linaro Networking Group
Linaro.org<http://www.linaro.org/> │ Open source software for ARM SoCs


_______________________________________________
lng-odp mailing list
lng-odp@lists.linaro.org<mailto:lng-odp@lists.linaro.org>
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp




--
Mike Holmes
Technical Manager - Linaro Networking Group
Linaro.org<http://www.linaro.org/> │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

_______________________________________________
lng-odp mailing list
lng-odp@lists.linaro.org
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp

Reply via email to