From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] kcp: add kernel control path kernel module Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 23:35:30 +0100 Message-ID: <5360490.85HbqvIh1a@xps13> References: <1453911849-16562-1-git-send-email-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <56D6C4BB.3070904@6wind.com> <2396478.VfdoPKd37H@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Avi Kivity To: Vincent JARDIN Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com (mail-wm0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46AF129D6 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 23:37:06 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f44.google.com with SMTP id l68so106877719wml.0 for ; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 14:37:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <2396478.VfdoPKd37H@xps13> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2016-03-02 12:21, Thomas Monjalon: > 2016-03-02 11:47, Vincent JARDIN: > > Le 02/03/2016 09:27, Panu Matilainen a =E9crit : > > >>> I'd like to see these be merged. > > >>> > > >>> Jay > > >> > > >> The code is really not ready. I am okay with cooperative develop= ment > > >> but the current code needs to go into a staging type tree. > > >> No compatibility, no ABI guarantees, more of an RFC. > > >> Don't want vendors building products with it then screaming when= it > > >> gets rebuilt/reworked/scrapped. > > >> > > > > > > Exactly. > >=20 > > +1 too > >=20 > > We need to build on this innovation while there is a path for kerne= l=20 > > mainstream. The logic of using a staging is a good one. > >=20 > > Thomas, > >=20 > > can we open a staging folder into the DPDK like it is done into the= kernel? >=20 > It's possible to create a staging directory if everybody agree. > It is important to state in a README file or in the doc/ that > there will be no guarantee (no stable ABI, no validation and can be d= ropped) > and that it is a work in progress, a suggestion to discuss with the k= ernel > community. >=20 > The kernel modules must clearly target an upstream integration. Actually the examples directory has been used as a staging for ethtool = and lthread. We also have the crypto API which is still experimental. So I think we must decide among these 3 solutions: =09- no special directory, just mark and document an experimental state= =09- put only kcp/kdp in the staging directory =09- put kcp/kdp in staging and move other experimental libs here