From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] slow data path communication between DPDK port and Linux Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:58:45 +0100 Message-ID: <11855450.AeS7qhTG6k@xps13> References: <1455858349-14639-1-git-send-email-ferruh.yigit@intel.com> <56E934E5.4080905@intel.com> <56E95C6B.1000004@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: Ferruh Yigit , dev@dpdk.org, David Marchand , Helin Zhang To: Panu Matilainen Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com (mail-wm0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33753558E for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:00:13 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id l124so49862224wmf.1 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 07:00:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <56E95C6B.1000004@redhat.com> 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" 2016-03-16 15:15, Panu Matilainen: > What I really would like to see is a clear policy regarding kernel > modules in DPDK. I certainly am in no position to dictate one, and > that's why I've been asking questions and throwing around crazy (or not) > ideas around the topic. I think the consensus is to avoid new kernel module, but allow them in a staging directory while being discussed upstream. About the existing out-of-tree kernel modules, we must continue trying to obsolete them with upstream work. If you feel the consensus must be clearly stated and acked, please send a patch for doc/guides/contributing/design.rst.