From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [pull-request] next-tm 17.08 pre-rc1 Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2017 22:01:31 +0200 Message-ID: <1838852.sCttUoyffy@xps> References: <1499182731-86830-1-git-send-email-cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com, hemant.agrawal@nxp.com, jasvinder.singh@intel.com, wenzhuo.lu@intel.com To: Cristian Dumitrescu Return-path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76D9D235 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2017 22:01:33 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <1499182731-86830-1-git-send-email-cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi, 04/07/2017 17:38, Cristian Dumitrescu: > http://dpdk.org/git/next/dpdk-next-tm I'm sorry to not have considered this tree as a high priority. I think it may be integrated in RC2 because it is a totally new area and should not break any existing code. I prefer to wait because I have seen some things to fix: 1/ There is a compilation error with clang (notified in related thread). 2/ Some functions are exposed in the API to query the ops. It seems dangerous and useless: - rte_eth_dev_tm_ops_get - rte_tm_ops_get 3/ The PMD interface file is referenced in the doxygen index: + [rte_tm_driver] (@ref rte_tm_driver.h), I see that rte_flow_driver.h is also referenced but it seems a mistake. 4/ As it is a totally new API, it should be declared as EXPERIMENTAL in the MAINTAINERS file and in the doxygen. 5/ There is no doc in the programmer's guide. 6/ There is no application to test it. I know that the points 5/ and 6/ are long to complete. However I would like to know what is the plan? And should we integrate TM in 17.08 without neither doc nor app?