From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 19/46] pool/dpaa2: add DPAA2 hardware
	offloaded mempool
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 11:27:26 +0530
Message-ID: <92fa2a03-373d-4904-0539-68e2322c14fa@nxp.com>
References: <1487205586-6785-1-git-send-email-hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>
 <20170308100553.14ca39a7@glumotte.dev.6wind.com>
 <521bf2d1-0393-c4ac-422e-96134880502a@nxp.com> <3284470.c3gGJi30Hp@xps13>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>, <dev@dpdk.org>,
 <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>,
 <john.mcnamara@intel.com>, <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
 <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
 (mail-sn1nam01on0071.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.32.71])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A14EC532D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  9 Mar 2017 06:57:41 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <3284470.c3gGJi30Hp@xps13>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On 3/8/2017 9:09 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2017-03-08 18:22, Hemant Agrawal:
>>> On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 18:16:36 +0530, Hemant Agrawal
>>> <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com> wrote:
>>> I think the current mempool handlers should be moved first in a
>>> separate patch.
>
> Yes it should have been done earlier.
>
>> Are you seeing any benefit by making it a separate patch series?
>
> A separate patchset for moving mempool handlers will be easy to review
> and accept.
> If integrated in this series, it is kind of hidden and prevent the
> visibility and review it deserves.
> By the way the mempool move should be directly committed in the main
> repository, while this series targets next-net.
>

hw mempool has dependency on mc-bus. So, we will break it into *5* series,

1. mc-bus - which can go on main repo - Rebased over main repo
2. dpaa2-pool - it can also go on main rep (depends on mc-bus) - Rebased 
over 'main repo + 1'.
3. dpaa2-pmd - this depends on mc-bus and dpaa2-pool
       A. mc-bus -another series rebased over net-next
       B. dpaa2-pool - another series rebased over 'net-next + A'
       C. the pmd itself rebased over 'net-next + A + B'

Are you sure, you will like us to do the above and flood the mailing 
list :)

I think, this will make the review difficult.

Bruce, Ferruh, Olivier - does the above help you? If so, we can do it.

My preference is to keep it as it is. It can be applied on 'net-next' or 
'main' as a whole. But I am open for suggestions.

>> it will be difficult and tricky for us. The dpaa2_pool has a dependency
>> on mc bus patches. dpaa2_pmd has dependency on dpaa2_pool and mc buses.
>
> You will just have to rebase this series on top of the new one.
>