From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yuanhan Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] Virtio-net PMD: QEMU QTest extension for container Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:31:05 +0800 Message-ID: <20160602073105.GS10038@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1457512409-24403-12-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp> <1464838185-21751-1-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: dev@dpdk.org, jianfeng.tan@intel.com, huawei.xie@intel.com, Thomas Monjalon , David Marchand To: Tetsuya Mukawa Return-path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A6092C56 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 09:31:09 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1464838185-21751-1-git-send-email-mukawa@igel.co.jp> 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" On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 12:29:39PM +0900, Tetsuya Mukawa wrote: > The patches will work on below patch series. > - [PATCH v5 0/8] virtio support for container > > It seems his implementation will be changed a bit. > So, this patch series are also going to be changed to follow his implementation. Hi Tetsuya, TBH, I was considering to reject your v4: the code was quite messy. But this v5 changed my mind a bit: it's much cleaner. But still, I'd ask do we really need 2 virtio for container solutions? That results to the same question that I'm sure you have already answered before: in which way your solution outweighs Jianfeng's? The reason I want to ask again is: 1), I wasn't actively participating the discussion in last release, besides some common comments on virtio, 2), maybe it's time to make a decision that should we take one solution only, if so, which one, or should we take both? Thomas is Cc'ed, hope he can help on the decision making. --yliu