2015-06-19 12:13, Thomas F Herbert:
>
> On 6/19/15 9:16 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2015-06-19 09:02, Neil Horman:
> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 02:32:33PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>> 2015-06-19 06:26, Neil Horman:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 04:55:45PM +, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
2015-06-19 11:27, Neil Horman:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 03:16:53PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2015-06-19 09:02, Neil Horman:
> > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 02:32:33PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 2015-06-19 06:26, Neil Horman:
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 04:55:45PM +,
2015-06-19 09:02, Neil Horman:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 02:32:33PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2015-06-19 06:26, Neil Horman:
> > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 04:55:45PM +, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> > > > For the 2.1 release, I think we should agree to make patches that change
> > > > the
2015-06-19 06:26, Neil Horman:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 04:55:45PM +, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> > For the 2.1 release, I think we should agree to make patches that change
> > the ABI controllable via a compile-time option. I like Olivier's proposal
> > on using a single option
On 6/19/15 1:02 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-06-19 12:13, Thomas F Herbert:
>>
>> On 6/19/15 9:16 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 2015-06-19 09:02, Neil Horman:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 02:32:33PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-06-19 06:26, Neil Horman:
>> On Thu, Jun 18,
On 6/19/15 9:16 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-06-19 09:02, Neil Horman:
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 02:32:33PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 2015-06-19 06:26, Neil Horman:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 04:55:45PM +, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> For the 2.1 release, I think we should
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 03:16:53PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-06-19 09:02, Neil Horman:
> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 02:32:33PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 2015-06-19 06:26, Neil Horman:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 04:55:45PM +, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> > > > > For the 2.1
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Richardson, Bruce
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:07 PM
> To: Neil Horman; Thomas Monjalon
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-announce] important design choices -
>
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 02:32:33PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-06-19 06:26, Neil Horman:
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 04:55:45PM +, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> > > For the 2.1 release, I think we should agree to make patches that change
> > > the ABI controllable via a compile-time
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 04:55:45PM +, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: announce [mailto:announce-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
> > Monjalon
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:30 AM
> > To: announce at dpdk.org
> > Subject: [dpdk-announce] important
On 18/06/2015 18:55, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> I like Olivier's proposal on using a single option (CONFIG_RTE_NEXT_ABI) to
> control all of these changes instead of a separate option per patch set
> (seehttp://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-June/019147.html), so I think we
> should rework the
> -Original Message-
> From: announce [mailto:announce-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
> Monjalon
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:30 AM
> To: announce at dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-announce] important design choices - statistics - ABI
>
> Hi all,
>
> During the development
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Richardson
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:17 PM
> To: Matthew Hall
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-announce] important design choices -
> statistics - AB
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Hall
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 5:37 AM
> To: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-announce] important design choices -
> statistics - ABI
>
> On Wed, Jun 17,
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Morten Br?rup
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 10:54 AM
> To: Thomas Monjalon
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-announce] important design choices -
> statistics -
On 17/06/2015 14:14, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> (initially accidentally sent to announce, resending to dev)
>
> On 06/17/2015 01:35 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 01:29:47AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Sometimes there are some important discussions about
(initially accidentally sent to announce, resending to dev)
On 06/17/2015 01:35 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 01:29:47AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Sometimes there are some important discussions about architecture or design
>> which require opinions from
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 09:36:54PM -0700, Matthew Hall wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 01:29:47AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > There were some debates about software statistics disabling.
> > Should they be always on or possibly disabled when compiled?
> > We need to take a decision shortly
Dear Thomas,
I don't have time to follow the DPDK Developers mailing list, but since you
call for feedback, I would like to share my thoughts regarding these design
choices.
Regarding the statistics discussion:
1. The suggested solution assumes that, when statistics is disabled, the cost
of
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Neil Horman
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 11:35 AM
> To: Thomas Monjalon
> Cc: announce at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-announce] important design choices -
> statistics -
2015-06-16 22:28, Stephen Hemminger:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Matthew Hall
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 01:29:47AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > There were some debates about software statistics disabling.
> > > Should they be always on or possibly disabled when compiled?
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 01:29:47AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Sometimes there are some important discussions about architecture or design
> which require opinions from several developers. Unfortunately, we cannot
> read every threads. Maybe that using the announce mailing list
Hi all,
Sometimes there are some important discussions about architecture or design
which require opinions from several developers. Unfortunately, we cannot
read every threads. Maybe that using the announce mailing list will help
to bring more audience to these discussions.
Please note that
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 01:29:47AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> There were some debates about software statistics disabling.
> Should they be always on or possibly disabled when compiled?
> We need to take a decision shortly and discuss (or agree) this proposal:
>
24 matches
Mail list logo
